Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

ELDERLY MEN.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Labour how many men over 65 years of age have made application at the Employment Exchanges to be placed in employment; and how many have been found jobs?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I regret that the statistics desired are not available.

Mr. Tinker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of these people could be of service to the State if found suitable work, and could not the matter be reorganised to put younger men in the jobs for which they are best suited, putting older men in their place? I am satisfied that he will find plenty of men to do that.

Mr. Bevin: I am constantly putting pressure on my Regional chairmen to comb through these men time and time again, and replacement is going on all the time, but I have not kept statistics on actual numbers.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the feeling of a good many people over 65 years of age that it is wrong to sign at the Exchange because they think that there is some connection between that and benefit? Will he make it clear, if he can, that a man can sign at the Exchange for employment?

Mr. Bevin: I will issue a public statement on the matter.

ESSENTIAL WORK ORDERS.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give the number of undertakings now scheduled under the Essential Work Orders; and how many people are now working under it?

Mr. Bevin: By 18th July, 1941 (the latest date for which figures are available) 10,409 undertakings had been scheduled under the various Essential Work Orders, excluding the Essential Work (Merchant Navy) Order, which schedules the Merchant Navy as a whole. As regards the second part of the Question the number is large. It would not be in the public interest to give more precise information.

Mr. Tinker: From the reports which my right hon. Friend gets, is it working fairly satisfactorily now?

Mr. Bevin: I think I can answer "Yes." The industries, on both sides, were a little slow to grasp the right procedure, but, like every new measure, affecting so many millions of people, and introduced suddenly, one cannot expect it to work without some teething troubles.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Is it confined to businesses only; have public social services the right to make application?

Mr. Bevin: Every industry that regards itself as essential to the life of the nation can make application. Those which do not come under that category can apply under the Protected Work Order.

UNEMPLOYED TINPLATE WORKERS.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that tinplate workers, rendered idle, are refused permission to take work near their homes and are being held in reserve for work which is not at present available; and will he make a statement of the intentions-of his Department in regard to these men?

Mr. Bevin: Substantial numbers of unemployed tinplate workers have been placed in employment locally and there has been no attempt to reserve them for work which was not at the time available, though some colour may have been given to this suggestion by unavoidable delays in transfer which have occurred in certain cases. Under the special labour supply scheme which has just been introduced for the iron and steel industry the use to be made of unemployed tinplate workers will be a matter, in the first instance, for the Regional Committee which will operate this scheme in Wales, consisting of representatives of my Department and


of the Ministry of Supply and of the two sides of the industry. Any unemployed tinplate workers for whom suitable employment in the iron and steel industry either in South Wales or elsewhere is not available will be placed on other work of national importance.

Mr. Griffiths: May I take it that if this work, for which they are reserved, is not available, and other work is available, they will not be kept idle?

Mr. Bevin: I must give precedence to the iron and steel trade as a whole. I have approved of a scheme which treats the industry as an entity, and I must fill up within the industry first. If there are no available positions in the industry to which to transfer the men then they must be placed on other work.

WOMEN,

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that many women, above the registration age, are deterred from seeking work through the Employment Exchanges from fear that they will be sent considerable distances from their homes; and will he consider permitting them to volunteer direct to local factories engaged on war production?

Mr. Bevin: I am not aware that such a feeling exists amongst women of the age referred to. Those women who desire to offer their services for local work should notify their nearest Employment Exchange, where full account will be taken of their wishes. I am not prepared to nullify the Restriction of Engagement Order by allowing direct application to factories.

Mr. Lipson: In view of the desirability of getting older women into munition factories to replace men, would not the right hon. Gentleman try an experimental period of allowing employers to engage them direct, or them to seek employment direct, to see whether the results justify the step?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. Directly I tampered with the Restriction of Engagement Order, I should get right back to the chaos from which this House desired that I should emerge.

ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS.

Mr. Crowder: asked the Minister of Labour how many electrical engineers have been placed through the instrumentality of the Central Register since September, 1940; and the cost per placing?

Mr. Bevin: The number of electrical engineers placed through the medium of the Central Register between 1st October, 1940, and 26th July, 1941, is 404. I am unable to give the cost per placing.

Mr. Crowder: In view of the small number of people who are being placed through the Central Register, could the right hon. Gentleman speed up the machinery and if possible, if he could spare the time, attend one of the meetings with the idea of speeding-up placing generally?

Mr. Bevin: I will certainly look into it.

Mr. Stephen: How many electrical engineers are there on the Central Register?

Mr. Bevin: I should have to have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

EXIT PERMITS (VISITS TO NORTHERN IRELAND).

Sir Hugh O'Neill: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider modifying the regulations governing permits to persons to visit their homes in Northern Ireland, in view of the fact that, as the definition of home is restricted to the residence of parents, husbands or wives, great hardship is caused in many cases?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): In my view the existing regulations go as far as is possible, having regard to the interests of national security, in enabling persons to pay visits to their homes in Ireland, and I regret that I see no prospect at present of being able to make any further relaxations.

Sir H. O'Neill: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman would not give special consideration to a case of this kind, of which I think there are one or two—an Ulster person working in this country,


whose parents are dead, whose only home is in Northern Ireland, who may be doing war work in this country, and who, unless there is some alteration, cannot get back during the war on holiday or on leave?

Mr. Morrison: I will, of course, consider any very hard cases, but I really cannot hold out much hope. There are not only shipping matters but security aspects concerned, and there are other Questions on the Order Paper asking me to tighten up security. Northern Ireland Members should make up their minds which way they want me to go. I must be pretty firm on security grounds. Still, I will look into the case that the right hon. Gentleman has put to me.

UNOCCUPIED HOUSES.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Home Secretary, in view of the fact that insurance companies encourage householders to have the water turned off when their premises are left empty, as shown by the circular which has been sent him, whether he will intimate to such companies that they would be contributing to the safety of the public by modifying the stipulation in the said circular?

Mr. H. Morrison: Experience has shown that serious waste may occur if water supplies are left on in empty premises. What is essential is that there should be adequate supplies of static water in all such premises, and it is proposed to require this in the Order shortly to be issued under the new paragraphs recently added to Defence Regulation 27.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Home Secretary whether in view of the fact that there are innumerable cases where owners of unoccupied houses have not given access to local authorities, and because of the urgency of this matter, in view of the likelihood of heavy air-raids in the near future, he will give powers to local authorities to make forcible entry into houses where access has not been given voluntarily?

Mr. Morrison: Wide powers of entry by authorised persons for the purpose of extinguishing fires already exist. Other powers are given by a new paragraph recently added to Defence Regulation 27, under which an Order will shortly be issued.

RIGHT CLUB.

Mr. Mander: asked the Home Secretary whether he will publish the list of members of the Right Club in possession of the Home Office; and what supervision is now exercised by his Department?

Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir. I do not think it would be in the public interest to publish the names of the members of this organisation, or to state what steps have been taken from the point of view of national security. Appropriate steps are taken to watch all kinds of people about whom there may be grounds for suspicion. About many members of the Right Club there are no grounds of suspicion, and about many people who were not members of the Right Club there are grounds of suspicion. To publish the names of people who are being watched would be most unwise: to publish the names of people who are not being watched would be unfair. Secrecy is the essence of any system of supervision.

Mr. Mander: In view of the fact that it has been stated that a number of distinguished persons, including Members of this House, belong to this rather remarkable organisation, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be in the public interest for everyone to know who belongs to it?

Mr. Morrison: I think it would be very interesting, but there is much interesting information in the Home Office which we really must keep to ourselves.

Mr. Shinwell: As regards the allegation that several hon. Members belong to this questionable organisation, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that this is not so, or, if they have belonged to it, that they have resigned?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell: Does that mean that my right hon. Friend does not wish to give such an assurance or that there are no hon. Members belonging to this organisation?

Mr. Morrison: It does not mean either of those things. It means that I do not propose to give any indication of what names there are, or are not, on this list.

Viscountess Astor: What is the difference between the Right and the Left?

EIRE (ENEMY AGENTS).

Dr. Little: asked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to assure the House that plans have been devised, and are being put into execution, whereby the activities of enemy spies and agents in Eire are being countered and their designs to impede the war effort frustrated?

Sir William Davison: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the fullest information of events in Great Britain is still being despatched to Germany from the German Legation in Dublin; that there is a perfunctory checking of identity cards of persons going into Eire from Northern Ireland; whether the position has now been reviewed; what improvements have been made; and what further steps are being taken to stop this menace to the safety of Britain and to the British war effort?

Mr. H. Morrison: If my hon. Friends are assuming that no steps have been taken to secure this object, that is an entire misapprehension. Appropriate steps have been and are being taken.

Dr. Little: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this matter requires haste, and that a month has passed and practically nothing has been done? Is he aware that it is reported that there is a possibility of another pro-Nazi Legation being established there in the near future?

Mr. Morrison: It really is impossible to discuss the details of this matter across the Floor of the House. It would be most unwise. I can only assure my hon. Friend and the House that every possioie step is being taken.

Sir W. Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I put my Question down to the Prime Minister, knowing that it was much too wide a matter for the Home Secretary? Can he answer the first and last parts of my Question, as to the safety of this country being imperilled by Germany being in direct touch with troop movements both in Northern Ireland and in this country?

Mr. Morrison: I am aware of all that is happening. As to the first two parts or my hon. Friend's Question, I doubt whether they are justified by the facts. As to the other point, the Prime Minister thought, and I thought, that the matter was one for the Home Office.

Sir W. Davison: Will my hon. Friend see, at any rate, to the tightening-up on regulations relating to the checking of identity cards of persons coming into Northern Ireland?

INCENDIARY BOMBS (INCENDEX).

Mr. Liddall: asked the Home Secretary whether his Department was represented at a recent demonstration at Grosvenor House of the use of Incendex for the purpose of extinguishing incendiary bombs; and whether he has received any reports with regard to the result of that demonstration?

Mr. H. Morrison: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative; as regards the second, a report has been furnished by the producers of this substance.

INJURED PERSONNEL.

Mr. Daggar: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, under the Personal Injuries (Civilian) Act, 1941, a Civil Defence volunteer who sustains a physical injury arising out of and in the course of the performance of his duties does, in the event of such incapacity lasting three days, also suffer in some instances a loss in wages of 30s., whereas, if he was compelled to remain idle for seven days his compensation would be £3 10s.; and as this is due to no compensation being paid for any period less than seven days will he take steps to provide for the payment of compensation on a basis similar to that of the Workmen's Compensation Act?

Mr. H. Morrison: Under arrangements already in force, part-time volunteers enrolled as members of a local authority's Civil Defence services may be compensated for actual loss of earnings by an amount which, together with the allowance paid under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme, does not exceed the basic Civil Defence rate of pay. An injury allowance under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme is not payable unless incapacity for work lasts for not less than seven consecutive days. Where the period of incapacity was less than seven consecutive days and the fact of injury arising out of the performance of authorised Civil Defence duty was established, I should be prepared to authorise payment of compensation on the principle stated above.

STEPNEY.

Mr. James Hall: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that paid wardens and stretcher-bearers over 38 years of age were called up from Stepney; why this was done; and whether he will take steps to prevent further dislocation of the Civil Defence services of Stepney?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am informed that, owing to a failure in this case to adopt the procedure laid down for securing deferment, five whole-time wardens in Stepney have recently received enlistment notices. The appropriate deferment procedure has since been complied with in the case of-other wardens under 41 years of age. who will accordingly be deferred until 30th September. An enlistment notice was sent to one stretcher bearer owing to a misunderstanding about his employment as a full-time member of the service. Application has been made to the War Office for the release of all six men.

Mr. Hall: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that full-time wardens in Stepney are being paid by shopkeepers and others to act as fire-watchers while they are on duty; and will he take steps to put a stop to this practice?

Mr. Morrison: It is clearly improper that Civil Defence volunteers who receive pay from local authorities for their services on the basis of a normal duty week of not less than 72 hours (or 48 hours if women) should, while on duty, work for and receive pay from other employers. If my hon. Friend will inform me of the names of the individuals concerned, I will take appropriate action. Inquiries to date have failed to identify the parties concerned.

Mr. Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole of the wardens' system in Stepney is honeycombed with this sort of thing, and that it has developed into a ramp? Without investigation it is very difficult to discover the extent of its ramifications. Will stricter control be exercised over the wardens in Stepney?

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will my right hon. Friend look into the growing practice in certain London districts of demolition workers leaving work in the morning, after working all night, and commencing work with contractors?

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir, I will do that. If particulars are given to me, it will be of assistance.

Mr. Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have discussed this matter with the controller at Stepney, who agrees with all that I have said?

DETAINEES.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Home Secretary whether, before he decides to disagree with the Advisory Committee's recommendation in any case with regard to appeals against detention under Regulation 18B, he will either himself interview the detained person, or personally discuss the case with the Advisory Committee before taking a decision?

Mr. H. Morrison: During the Debate on 23rd July I outlined certain of the difficulties which would be caused by the suggestion that I should interview detainees personally, and I regret that I cannot see my way to adopt this suggestion. I should, however, feel no hesitation in discussing any case with the Advisory Committee or the Chairman if I felt that any useful purpose would be served by doing so, and, in fact, cases are frequently referred back to the Committee for further consideration if I do not feel able at once to accept the Committee's recommendation.

Major Cazalet: asked the Home Secretary how many of the persons detained under Defence Regulation 18B still remain in prison; and how many have been sent to other places of detention?

Mr. Morrison: There are 642 in the Isle of Man, and at the present date there are still 118 in prison establishments in this country; but the figure of 118 includes 75 persons of whom some do not wish to go to the Isle of Man and the remainder are being detained in this country for the time being for some temporary reason, such as pending litigation or attendance before the Advisory Committee.

Major Cazalet: May I take it that it is the policy of the Home Secretary in the future to see that His Majesty's prisons will be used only for those who have been tried and duly convicted by law and not for people who have been detained under this Regulation?

Mr. Morrison: I think the House will know, from the policy I have adopted, that I am very anxious to remove ail these cases so far as I can, but I do not think it would be right to commit myself 100 per cent. to such an undertaking, because circumstances may arise in which it would not be possible. It is my intention, however, to try and do what the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Maxton: Regarding these 600 who went to the Isle of Man, did they have the option of not going?

Mr. Morrison: Not necessarily. The House gave me powers of transference to the Isle of Man. There have been cases where people have expressed a preference not to go to the Isle of Man, and that has been taken into account. I am quite willing to meet them so far as I can.

Earl Winterton: Can the Home Secretary say whether any persons still in prison are subjects of foreign Powers, or are they British subjects?

Mr. Morrison: I would not be quite sure, but I think some are subjects of foreign Powers.

Mr. Maxton: Can my right hon. Friend say on what basis some remained in this country, compared with others who wished to remain here yet were sent to the Isle of Man?

Mr. Morrison: There is a variety of considerations, but I can assure my hon. Friend that he need not think there is anything sinister about the fact that some are here and some are in the Isle of Man. We do try to meet their wishes so far as we possibly can.

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: asked the Home Secretary whether he is now prepared to release from detention the Communist ex-deputies to the Czech Parliament, Mr. Gustav Beuer and Mr. Kreibich, and the other Czechoslovakians, of the same- political faith, now detained in the Isle of Man internment camp?

Mr. Morrison: I am arranging to have these cases reviewed by the Advisory Committee sitting in the Isle of Man and will consider them when I have received the Committee's report.

Miss Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend remember that it is now six weeks

since the beginning of the war on the Russian front, and that the men referred to in the Question are highly respected men, against whom, I believe, there is no cause for complaint except their Communist opinion? Can that be an objection now that Russia is our Ally? Arc-not these men our allies?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Lady has always felt strongly that detainees should be released, and I have held the view that they should not. I agree that new circumstances have arisen, and I am having the matter investigated, but there has to be an investigation before they can be released.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Home Secretary how many non-enemy aliens are still detained in prisons, specifying the Regulation under which they are detained; and whether, in view of the long time that such detention has lasted in many cases, he will arrange that all, except those he feels able to release, or those whose specially dangerous character require closer seclusion, should be transferred to internment camps?

Mr. Morrison: The total number of aliens of non-enemy nationality who are at present being detained in prison is 204. Of these 56 are detained under Article 12 (5A) of the Aliens Order because their deportation is impracticable or would be prejudicial to the national interests and their detention is necessary or expedient; they will be sent to internment camps as soon as their cases have been reviewed unless, in any particular case, it is considered desirable for reasons such as those suggested by my hon. Friend to detain the alien in prison. 143 are detained temporarily under Article 3 (4) of the Aliens Order and they consist of a miscellaneous collection of persons refused leave to land pending inquiry and a decision as to their ultimate disposal. Five aliens are detained under Defence Regulation 18B whose cases are at present under consideration.

INTERNEES (OCCUPATION).

Mr. Hannah: asked the Home Secretary whether it has been found possible to give useful occupation to those, both British and foreign, interned in the Isle of Man.

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. More than half of the total number, approximately


4,5000, of men interned or detained in the Isle of Man have been found useful occupation inside or outside the camps. The larger number of these perform camp duties, but about 800 are employed on agriculture, land reclamation, quarrying and other work of this kind outside the camps, and 200 on industries established in the camps. A considerable amount of employment has also been found for the women in the women's camp and the married camp. Every effort is being made to find suitable work for those willing and fit to undertake it.

Mr. Hannah: Are the Government aware that I am constantly getting complaints that Fascism is finding plenty of work for idle hands to do among the younger people who are not employed?

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Will my right hon. Friend comb out the young women and other workshies and National Service dodgers who have interned themselves in the Isle of Man?

BOMBED PREMISES (STOLEN STORED CHATTELS).

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Home Secretary whether he will indicate what liability has been put upon a local authority when goods from bombed premises, stored by it, are stolen?

Mr. H. Morrison: Local authorities are expected to take all reasonable care of chattels which they remove from bombed premises and store on the owner's behalf. No specific liability has been put upon them to do more than this.

Mr. Hall: Will my right hon. Friend remember that goods are stolen, in spite of the care taken by local authorities, and that many of the people who own these goods are quite poor? Cannot something be done to close this gap?

Mr. Morrison: To give an unrestrained undertaking about compensation would be opening up for ourselves and the local authorities a great deal of trouble, and I do not think I ought to do that. Local authorities do their best to take care of people's goods, and I think they deserve a vote of thanks for what they are doing.

A.R.P. VOLUNTEER, CAMBRIDGE.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that an unpaid volunteer section leader in the

Cambridge air-raid precautions service has been dismissed from the service without being told the charges made or given an opportunity to meet them; and whether he will instruct the local authority to hold an immediate public investigation into all the circumstances?

Mr. H. Morrison: The engagement and termination of the services of Civil Defence volunteers is a matter for the local authority concerned and one in which in ordinary circumstances I am not prepared to intervene.

Mr. Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very exceptional circumstances connected with this case, that a good deal of feeling has been shown in Cambridge on the matter and that I am informed that the local medical officer of health acted on a misconception of the facts? Cannot my right hon. Friend make representations to the local authority to hold an inquiry?

Mr. Morrison: It is a question of the relative importance of a Minister's duties, and unless a case is really such that it indicates that the administration of a local authority in that respect is fundamentally bad, I really think it best that the local people should settle the problem themselves.

INTERNEES (AUSTRALIA).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Home Secretary whether any reports have been received from the Australian Government as to the conditions and amenities in the new camps for internees?

Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir, but my representative in Australia, Major Layton, is in communication with the Australian authorities in the matter, and I hope to receive a report shortly.

Mr. Strauss: Can my right hon. Friend say why the new camps were set up?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid I could not, but I imagine it was a matter of local administration.

Mr. Leslie Boyce: Are not the Commonwealth Government and Parliament at least as enlightened as the Government and Parliament in this country in the management of internees? Does it not amount to an unwarrantable interference with the affairs of a self-governing Dominion to comment on their action?

Mr. Morrison: As to the first part of that supplementary question, the answer is in the affirmative. As to the second part, it is the case that these people were sent out on the initiative of the British Government, and it is right that the House of Commons should be able to query matters about them.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Home Secretary whether any recent progress has been made in discussions with the Australian Government for the release in Australia of those whose release has been authorised by His Majesty's Government, but for whom no travelling facilities to this country are available?

Mr. Morrison: As I explained in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) on 24th July, this is entirely a matter for the Commonwealth Government, and there have been no discussions between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and that Government.

Mr. Strauss: While appreciating that that is so, in view of the fact that these internees would have been released if they had been in this country and that many of them are young people who could do extremely useful war work, will my right hon. Friend make representations to Australia?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot do that. We made a firm agreement with the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia that this was a matter for them and them alone. It touches the immigration policy of the Commonwealth Government, and it is quite inappropriate that a British Minister should interfere.

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: While I appreciate that fact, cannot my right hon. Friend represent that if these people cannot be released, they can at least be kept under less humiliating conditions? At present they are behind barbed wire and cannot see their friends unless they are accompanied by an armed guard.

Mr. Morrison: I have no doubt that that is one of the matters in the course of discussion between Major Layton and the Commonwealth Government.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Home Secretary whether any arrangements have been made for the continued

education of the boys and youths between 16 and 19 years of age, about 400 in number, who were sent as internees to Australia in June, 1940, on the s.s. "Dunera"; and whether he will request His Majesty's Government in Australia to give favourable consideration to the release in Australia, for the duration of the war, of schoolboys and college students for the purpose of continued education?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. Information received from the Australian authorities through the High Commissioner in London at the end of May showed that extensive educational projects had been in operation in the camp at Hay, and that action would be taken to ensure provision of the necessary educational facilities in the camps to which the internees have since been transferred. Equipment and books have been provided, partly by the Commonwealth Government and partly by a Welfare Society. As regards the question of release in Australia, I can add nothing to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member on 24th July.

Mr. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend consider limited release for the duration of the war as a point to be placed before the Australian Government?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. That would touch an honourable agreement reached between the two Governments, and it would have a repercussion on the immigration policy of the Australian Government to which that Government have always attached great importance. I am sure we should run the risk of creating harmful friction if we were to seek to back out of the agreement we made with the Australian Government.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Surely, my right hon. Friend will agree that it is possible to vary an agreement. Would there be anything dishonest in that, in view of the changed circumstances?

Mr. Morrison: When the Australian Government consented to receive the refugees or detained persons, they did so on specific conditions, to which we agreed. Having made that agreement, I think we should stick to it

FIRE SERVICE.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Home Secretary whether he can now make a statement on the Fire Order?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am not in a position at present to add to the first part of the Answer which I gave my hon. Friend on 24th July in reply to a Question on this subject.

Mr. Lindsay: Will my right hon. Friend be able to make a decision shortly? Does he remember that six weeks ago I brought to his notice cases given by the warden of Toynbee Hall and much on the same lines as the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. James Hall) earlier in Questions?

Mr. Morrison: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am anxious to make a statement as soon as possible, but I think the House will agree that it is important to clear up amicably the discussions now proceeding with the employers and the Trades Union Congress.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Home Secretary (1) whether he is aware that large numbers of partially disabled men are being deprived of their partial payment under the Workmen's Compensation Acts on account of the notional wages which they are deemed to be capable of earning being increased; and whether he will take steps to protect these men, who are deprived of compensation though their disability continues and is of a permanent character?
(2) Whether he is aware that workmen who are partially disabled by industrial accident and disease who take up suitable work in furtherance of the war effort are losing their partial payments under the Workmen's Compensation Act; and whether, as such loss of payment is continuous, he will take steps to prevent these men being penalised in this way?

Mr. H. Morrison: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Reply given to a Question by the hon. Member for the Penistone Division (Mr. McGhee) on 24th July. For the reasons then given, I regret that I cannot promise any legislative action at present. I may point out that where a workman is suffering from a continuing disability he will, in the event of his earnings being reduced in future below his pre-accident earnings, be able to claim further compensation on the basis of his reduced earnings.

Mr. Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that in the meantime these men are suffering considerable hardship? Since this is a bar to their undertaking war work, will he consider introducing a simple Measure to stabilise partial payments of compensation at the pre-war level, so that every man who is free to do so may give of his best to the nation at the present time?

Mr. Morrison: This matter was carefully, and not unsympathetically, considered in consultation with the Trades Union Congress some time ago. As a result, we came to the conclusion at the Home Office that we could not deal with this single point without a wider reshaping of the system, and that was not thought desirable at the moment.

Mr. Buchanan: Could the Home Secretary not re-examine this matter, which is causing great anxiety?

Mr. Morrison: It was fully considered, and that conclusion was deliberately reached after weighing all the facts. I do not think it would be fair for me to hold out prospects that the question could be reopened.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is it not a fact that when a man gets an increase of wages, no matter how small, his partial compensation is lower as a result, so that he gets no advantage at all from the increase?

Mr. Morrison: We must take into consideration what the basis of workmen's compensation is. I do not see how this particular point can be segregated from a wide range of others inherent in workmen's compensation.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In view of the public importance of this question and of the large number of people involved, I beg to give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment.

PRISONERS (HOURS IN CELLS).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that prisoners are confined to their cells for as long as 18¼ hours per day; and whether he will take steps to alter these conditions?

Mr. H. Morrison: The hours for which prisoners are in their cells include the meal periods and the night period. The aggregate time is always long, but before the war every effort was made to shorten it by extending the working day and arranging for certain associated activities in the evening. With the depletion of staff resulting from war conditions it became impossible to maintain this policy, and in the local prisons the hours of association are now shorter than I should wish. In the convict prisons, where those prisoners who are serving long sentences are detained, the hours for which prisoners are allowed out of their cells are considerably longer than is suggested in the Question. Moreover, special arrangements have been made as regards young prisoners in local prisons, and I hope to improve these arrangements. But my hon. Friend will recognise that the special difficulties created by war conditions prevent the adoption of many measures which in other circumstances I should be anxious to take.

Mr. Davies: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to look into the position at Leicester and consider whether it is possible to remove what are regarded by most sensible people as inhuman conditions?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

ROAD TRAFFIC LIGHTS.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to recent prosecutions of motorists in London for over-running traffic signals, and to their defence that the lights at some points are not visible on sunny days through want of cleaning or deterioration of bulbs; and whether he will direct the police to call the attention of borough councils to any signals at which the light is inadequate?

Mr. H. Morrison: It is not uncommon for motorists prosecuted for infringements of automatic traffic signals to plead in mitigation that the lights are difficult to see in bright sunlight—the difficulty being usually ascribed to the present method of masking the lights rather than to want of cleaning or deterioration of bulbs. Traffic light installations are regularly inspected by police and any defects observed are reported to the authorities responsible for maintenance.

Mr. Keeling: Is the Home Secretary aware that a number of provincial authorities show a fuller light in day-time than at night, and does he think it right that London, which should lead in these matters, should be so far behind?

Mr. Morrison: It is a matter of degree and of black-out regulations, but I will consider the point.

Mr. Silverman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the signals, especially in London, are completely and totally invisible, and that it is really hard for people who want to be law-abiding to be converted into offenders by reason of not obeying signals which they really cannot see?

Mr. Morrison: I gathered that my hon. Friend had in mind some particular signals, and if he will be good enough to let me have the particulars, I will have them examined.

WELSH CHURCH COMMISSION.

Sir Robert Bird: asked the Home Secretary (1) who are the remaining 18 beneficiaries entitled, under the Welsh Church Acts, to receive the funds and property vested in the Welsh Church Commission by the Acts;
(2) the aggregate of the payments made, to date, to each of the remaining 18 beneficiaries, on capital and revenue account, respectively, by the Welsh Church Commission out of the funds and properties vested in the Commission under the Welsh Church Act; and what are the funds and estimated value of the property still to be transferred?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am having a statement compiled giving as fully as possible the particulars for which my hon. Friend asks, and I will communicate it to him as soon as possible.

DOMESTIC SERVANTS FROM EIRE.

Sir W. Davison: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the traffic in domestic servants between Southern Ireland and this country and the abuse of the Home Office requirement of a certificate from an employer in Great Britain that employment was available, whereby often, when the


servant has only been a short time in the employment in question, she has given notice and disappeared; and what action is being taken in this matter?

Mr. H. Morrison: I have no reason to think that there are many cases of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend, but certain amendments are being made in the Regulations which will make it possible to deal with any abuses which may occur in the future.

Sir W. Davison: Does, the right hon. Gentleman realise the serious danger of the matter as indicated in the Question? I have had instances brought to my personal notice. Will he see that the Regulations are tightened up?

Mr. Morrison: That is the principal purpose of the amendments we are making.

PIONEER CORPS (ALIENS, NATURALISATION).

Wing-Commander James: asked the Home Secretary how many aliens serving in the Pioneer Corps have applied for naturalisation; and whether he will bear in mind the assurances repeatedly given to the House that admission to this country from Nazi oppression was to be for temporary transit only and was not to be a prelude to the granting of British citizenship?

Mr. H. Morrison: It was found necessary more than a year ago to suspend the consideration of applications for naturalisation at the present time. Inquirers are being informed that it has not been found possible to make special arrangements for dealing with applications from men serving with His Majesty's Forces and that service in the Pioneer Corps could not of itself be regarded as a special ground for naturalisation.

Wing-Commander James: Will my right hon. Friend answer the first part of the Question, as to how many applications have been made?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid I could not do that without a great deal of research, but I imagine that the number may be fairly considerable.

Wing-Commander James: Is it not the case that the applications have to go

through the usual channels, and therefore, must be available almost at once?

Mr. Morrison: I will go into that further, but in any case there was some difficulty in getting the figures in time for my answer.

Mr. A. Bevan: Is it not a fact that many aliens belonging to the Pioneer Corps are suffering great hardship, as many of them had their naturalisation papers almost completely through at the beginning of the war and many of them would be extremely desirable as citizens, and does not my right hon. Friend deprecate the malicious spirit behind the Question?

Mr. Morrison: That is a gross misrepresentation— a wild statement that my hon. Friend ought not to make. There is no malicious spirit about this.

Mr. Bevan: I think my right hon. Friend misunderstood me. I asked whether he did not deprecate the malicious spirit behind the original Question?

Mr. Speaker: It is not in Order for an hon. Member to comment in that way on another hon. Member's Question.

Colonel Arthur Evans: May I ask

Mr. Speaker: rose

Colonel Evans: May I not ask a supplementary question on a very important point?

Mr. Speaker: There has been a considerable number of supplementary questions on this Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SCHOOL ATTENDANCE.

Mr. David Adams: asked the President of the Board of Education whether all schoolchildren are now receiving full-time education; if not, what number are receiving no education, and why; and also the numbers receiving only part-time education?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): I have no later information than that given in reply to the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey) on 19th June. Figures for the week ended 12th July are now being


collected and I will send them to the hon. Member when they are available, together with the explanation he desires.

Mr. Adams: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that many changes must have happened in this matter since 19th July, and could not the figures be made available to the House? Are there still numbers of schoolchildren receiving no education?

Mr. Butler: I am glad to say that there is only a small number, under one per cent., of children receiving no education, and I think that is a very remarkable figure in the circumstances. I have told the hon. Member that I will give him the figures for the week ending 12th July directly I have them, and I will also make them available to the House.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is the Board satisfied that the school attendance officers employed by the local authorities are able in the difficult circumstances prevailing to perform their duties as effectively during the war as in peace time?

Mr. Butler: It is my opinion that they are.

NURSERY CENTRES.

Mr. Lindsay: asked the President of the Board of Education what is the representation of his Department on the Joint Committee concerned with accelerating the provision of nursery centres?

Mr. Butler: A principal from the Board of Education, who has been conversant with the nursery centres scheme from the beginning, has been attached to the division of the Ministry of Health, which is administering war-time nurseries. In addition, one of the Board's medical officers and one of His Majesty's expert inspectors are assisting the Ministry in the work.

Mr. Lindsay: When my right hon. Friend has time to do so, will he reconsider the recent decision to transfer this work to another Department, as it goes against the experience of all the best workers of the last 30 years?

Mr. Butler: I am satisfied from what I have seen hitherto that the arrangements made are working satisfactorily. I have announced to the House the arrangements

we have made in collaboration with my right hon. Friend's Department.

Viscountess Astor: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the people who have been interested in the question of nursery centres consider that the recent decision was a retrograde step, and will he also give a guarantee that there will be qualified inspectors?

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS (SCHOLARSHIPS).

Wing-Commander James: asked the President of the Board of Education whether any State grants for higher education or scholarships at universities, and, if so, how many of the latter, are now granted to students who have declined military service?

Mr. Butler: Grants arc made by the Board to State scholars and to intending teachers in attendance at Universities. The information for which my hon. and gallant Friend asks is not readily available. The position of a conscientious objector has been established by law, and there are no grounds upon which the Board could debar them from State grant, or otherwise penalise them, so long as they carry out the directions of the Tribunal.

Wing-Commander James: If I put down a Question at a later date, will my right hon. Friend be able to give the figures for which I have asked?

Mr. Butler: It is extremely difficult to obtain the figures, but I will look into the matter.

MILK IN SCHOOLS.

Mr. Leach: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware of the unsatisfactory condition, supply and distribution of milk delivered to Southport schools, and of a report of the Southport health department which indicated that one sample of milk must have been stale before it was pasteurised; and whether any regulations exist which forbid the pasteurisation of stale milk?

Mr. Butler: I am aware of the difficulties which have arisen in Southport about the supply of milk to schools, and my Department have been in communication with the Ministry of Food, who have taken the matter up actively. I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health that the conditions prescribed for pasteurised milk include a


bacterial standard for the milk after, but not before, pasteurisation.

Mr. Leach: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that pasteurised milk is no longer of use for feeding purposes when it goes bad, whereas un pasteurised milk can be used in all kinds of ways?

EIRE (RELATIONS WITH GREAT BRITAIN).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to make propositions to the head of the Eire Government, aimed at removing existing difficulties which stand in the way of the closest co-operation between the peoples of Eire and Great Britain?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has frequently made clear the attitude of the Government here as regards relations with Eire, and can only add that, in present circumstances, he does not see that there are any proposals which he can usefully make to the Eire Government.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the situation which now exists, and following the fiasco of conscription in Northern Ireland, will the Prime Minister not seriously consider discussing with the Leader of Eire the question of removing partition and the problems which arise between the two countries?

MINISTER OF STATE.

Earl Winterton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that whenever the Minister of State be recalled to this country for consultation this House, if it is sitting, will be afforded an opportunity of hearing a statement from him?

Mr. Attlee: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister could not at this stage give such an undertaking as suggested by my noble Friend. Any proposal of the kind will have to depend upon circumstances at the time.

Earl Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend give assurance that so far as is possible the old constitutional rule will be observed, that a Minister, especially a Cabinet Minister, is answerable for his official actions in this House or in another

place? That is a very important constitutional point.

Mr. Attlee: Certainly the constitutional principle remains the same, but the noble Lord, in his Question, is rather tying us down to a particular date which it might not be possible to give.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is the Minister aware that if many more Cabinet Ministers are sent abroad it will be necessary to bring some of them back to fill up the places on the Front Bench?

MEDICAL RESEARCH (GRANTS-IN-AID).

Mr. Leach: asked the Lord President of the Council what sums were allocated in 1938–39, 1939–40 and 1940–41 to medical research; and whether he will consider reducing, if not abolishing, this grant in view of the number of vivisection laboratories which have been closed since the beginning of the war?

The Lord President of the Council (Sir John Anderson): The grant-in-aid of the Medical Research Council, exclusive of a special capital grant of £70,000 for Building in 1939–40, was £195,000 in each of these years. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative.

Mr. Leach: What use can these grants be if the laboratories are being closed in the meantime?

Sir J. Anderson: The grants-in-aid are paid by the Council to various institutions and individuals for research work. It is perfectly true that since the outbreak of war there has been some falling off in the amount of general medical research, but I am assured that that has been more than offset by work on special war problems.

Mr. Lipson: Is not more money required for medical research instead of less?

Viscountess Astor: Would it not be better to spend the money on prevention?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

WORKERS WAGES.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture why consideration of the


application for an increase in the minimum wage of agricultural workers has been postponed to November?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): In accordance with the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Acts, 1924 and 1940, consideration of the national minimum wage for agricultural workers is a matter for the Agricultural Wages Board. I would refer the hon. Member to the announcement issued by the Board following its meeting on 22nd July, which appeared in the Press. I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Mr. Smith: Does not my right hon. Friend think farm workers are entitled at the present time to a little more consideration than they have been receiving, and is there any connection between this delay and the White Paper which was recently issued on price stabilisation?

Mr. Hudson: As is pointed out in the announcement, the Agricultural Wages Board have proposed deferring consideration until November, but that will not prevent farm workers making use of the existing machinery for the settlement of wages. In fact an increasing number of counties have agreed to an increase in wages in the last few weeks under the ordinary procedure.

Mr. Smith: May I have an answer to the last part of my Question? Is there any connection between this delay and the price stabilisation policy laid down in the White Paper?

Mr. Hudson: I am afraid I cannot say what was in the mind of the Board when they took their decision.

Mr. Smith: Is it not a fact that the Minister supplied the appointed members with the Government's point of view on that White Paper?

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir, we did not supply the appointed members with our point of view on that White Paper. The whole Board asked, me for a paper, showing what were the real economic conditions of the industry, in accordance with the terms of the Act, and I provided them with a factual and entirely objective statement.

DAIRY CATTLE DISEASES.

Mr. Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made in preparing the scheme for the eradication of diseases in dairy cattle?

Mr. Hudson: I am glad to say that substantial progress has been made towards securing the agreement of all interested parties to a scheme for the control of diseases of dairy cattle.

Mr. Price: When is the scheme likely to come into operation?

Mr. Hudson: I hope, in the autumn,

SOIL STERILISATION.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his Department is aware of the increased horticultural production secured by the process of steaming the soil; and whether he is doing any thing to encourage this process?

Mr. Hudson: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, but it is important to realise that the treatment in question is concerned with the soil of glasshouses in relation to the tomato crop only. My Department has issued a bulletin specially on this subject. In cases where I am satisfied that the demand is sufficient and that suitable facilities are not already available, I am willing to provide, through county war agricultural executive committees, the necessary apparatus for soil sterilisation in glasshouses.

ALLOTMENTS (BIRMINGHAM).

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many allotments have been abolished by the Birmingham authorities in the last ten years; and how many new allotments have been started since the war began?

Mr. Hudson: I have no information that enables me to answer the first part of the Question. As regards the second part, 9,000 war-time allotments have been provided in Birmingham since the outbreak of war, including more than 6,000 by the Corporation direct.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Cannot the Minister obtain the statistics asked for in the first part of the Question?

Mr. Hudson: I doubt it.

EDUCATION (APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE).

Sir J. Lamb: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is yet in a position to make any further statement about the reform of the system of agricultural education?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir. After consultation with my right hon. Friend the late President of the Board of Education, I have appointed a Committee under the Chairmanship of Lord Justice Luxmoore to examine the present system of agricultural education and to make recommendations for improving and developing it after the war. The other members of the Committee are: The hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Hubert Beaumont), Mr. W. J. Cumber, Mr. Ifor L. Evans, Mr. W. M. Goodenough, Dr. T. Loveday and Mr. J. M. McClean. I have further appointed Mr. A. R. Whyte, of the Ministry of Agriculture, and Mr. Ronald Ede, Secretary of the School of Agriculture, Cambridge, to be Joint Secretaries to the Committee.

Sir J. Lamb: Can the Minister give any indication as to the scope of this committee's work Will it touch elementary, secondary and higher school education?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir. I have told the Committee that I expect them to cover the groundwork of elementary and secondary education which forms the source of supply of recruits to agriculture. The types of training required by the various categories for which agricultural education should cater, including farmers, landowners, bailiffs, farm workers, land agents, agricultural engineers, teachers, technical advisers, and the extent to which the existing system should be modified or increased to meet these needs.

Mr. Maxton: In reading the list of names of those who are to serve on the Committee, the Minister did not state the qualifications of the members for the task. Will he set out in some paper the qualifications of the men appointed to this important work?

Mr. Hudson: The hon. Member for Batley and Morley is well known to the House; Mr. Cumber was Chairman last year of the Council of Agriculture; Mr. Evans is Principal of the University of

Wales, Aberystwyth; Mr. Goodenough is a prominent banker and farmer; Dr. Loveday is Vice-Chancellor of Bristol University, and Mr. McClean is a leading farmer.

Mr. Harvey: Will adult education be included, with special reference to experience in Denmark?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Lipson: Is it intended that women should take part in agriculture after the war?

RABBITS.

Sir J. Lamb: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any action has been taken by his Department to co-ordinate and ensure the killing of rabbits during the coming corn-cutting season; or, alternatively, will he consult with the Minister of Food with a view to decontrolling prices of rabbits during the month of August to encourage their destruction?

Mr. Hudson: An intensive campaign for the destruction of rabbits has been in progress since the making of the Rabbits Order in March, 1940. The powers conferred on county war agricultural executive committees by this Order enable them to deal with rabbits at all times, and I am satisfied that the aspect of the problem to which my hon. Friend refers will receive the attention of the committees.

Sir J. Lamb: Does the Minister realise that owing to the dry season a large number of rabbits are now hidden in the corn, and that this is the best time for dealing with them? Furthermore, is he aware that since the Home Guard was formed the public have given up guns in answer to the appeals made to them, and that it is no use farmers having ammunition without guns?

Mr. Lawson: If any men, formerly known as poachers, take part in this destruction, will they be summoned?

Mr. Hudson: I do not know about that.

Mr. Lawson: Why do you not mobilise all the poachers in the country?

POULTRY INDUSTRY.

Mr. De la Beère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the importance and size of the poultry


industry throughout the country, steps can be taken to ensure that the industry is represented on the county war agricultural committees in all those areas where poultry breeding is carried out on an extensive scale?

Mr. Hudson: The persons appointed as members of county war agricultural executive committees have been selected on grounds of general suitability for exercising the powers delegated to them under the Defence Regulations for increasing home food production, and no justification exists for appointing representatives of particular sections of the agricultural industry as such. I am satisfied that the interests of poultry keepers are adequately safeguarded under the existing arrangements.

Mr. De la Beère: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the poultry industry has not been adequately represented and is far worse treated than any section of the farming industry?

Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that hens are as important as roosters?

FOXES (DESTRUCTION).

Mr. De la Beère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the substantial losses which have been sustained by the poultry industry owing to the lack of hunting, he will organise and encourage a campaign for the extermination of foxes in those areas which have been adversely affected during the past season?

Mr. Hudson: I am satisfied that in such cases the appropriate county war agricultural executive committees are already taking steps to destroy foxes. In any case, however, where it appears that the action taken is inadequate, I will bring the matter to the notice of the Committee concerned.

FRESH-WATER ANGLING.

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the shortage of fresh-water fishing tackle; and whether he will take steps to facilitate the catching of freshwater fish?

Mr. Hudson: Supplies needed to produce fishing tackle are becoming scarce and under present conditions are not likely to be renewed when the existing stocks are exhausted. Moreover, a great deal of the labour normally employed in the manufacture of fishing tackle has been diverted to work connected with the war. There is therefore little prospect of material improvement in the supply of fishing tackle for taking fresh-water fish. In reply to the second part of the Question, steps are being taken to increase the catch of eels and perch other than by rod and line.

RENT CHARGES (PROSECUTIONS).

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the difficulties of local authorities in carrying out his injunction to prosecute in cases of alleged rent profiteering, often arise from inability to prove the standard rent, and from the cumbrous procedure involved in proof; and whether the necessary fuller powers can be given to local authorities in this matter?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): I have no evidence that the difficulty to which my hon. Friend refers is a general one. The existing law provides for the fixing of the standard rent in cases of doubt by the courts, and I do not consider that any amendment of the law on this point could usefully be made.

Sir P. Hurd: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the tedious proceedings, which delay action by local authorities? Can he not devise means to shorten the period of delay?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman will bring the facts of particular cases before me, I shall be glad to look into them.

Mr. Stokes: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange that excessive rents shall be subject to 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax?

FARNBOROUGH HOSPITAL (MISS BROWNLOW).

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, while Miss Brownlow is on indefinite leave of absence at an inclusive salary of


£ 500 a year, she is debarred from taking other employment except in institutions controlled by the Ministry of Health; and has he any suitable post to offer her?

Mr. E. Brown: The position is not as suggested by my hon. Friend in the first part of the Question. Miss Brownlow is free to obtain any other employment, subject to a corresponding adjustment of the amount which she is receiving from the Kent County Council. The matrons of institutions are not employed by me, but by the governing bodies of those institutions, but if any opportunity of assisting Miss Brownlow to secure suitable employment arises, I will gladly avail myself of it.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that legal opinion has been taken and that Miss Brownlow has been advised that she cannot take other employment?

Mr. Brown: I cannot add anything to the straightforward answer that I have given.

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Health whether Miss Brownlow, lately matron at Farnborough Hospital, has now agreed to the publication of a letter he wrote to the council; and, if so, will he now give the terms of that letter?

Mr. Brown: The material parts of the letter are incorporated in one from the Kent County Council to Miss Brownlow, which has been published in the ''British journal of Nursing" for July, 1941, apparently at the instance of Miss Brownlow herself.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Parliamentary Secretary promised that, if Miss Brownlow's permission could be secured, it would be published?

Mr. Brown: The doubt was whether she would wish it. As I have pointed out, the material parts of the letter are incorporated in one which has been published in this "Journal." If the hon. Gentleman wants the whole, I am quite willing to give it, but there are no material parts except those which have been published.

Sir W. Smithers: Would it not be better to publish it in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Brown: I am quite willing to do that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Lees-Smith: May we be informed what will be the forthcoming Business of the House?

Mr. Attlee: The Business will be as follows:
First Sitting Day.—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill—Debate on Coal; Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) (Amendment) Bill, if not previously disposed of; Second Reading of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill; and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Second Sitting Day.—Committee and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill—Debate on the War Situation; and consideration of any outstanding Business.
Third Sitting Day.—Motion for the Adjournment for the Recess.

Mr. Bevan: Regarding the discussion on the coal industry on the first Sitting Day, in view of the fact that the "War Cabinet is directly involved, will arrangements be made for a member of the War Cabinet to speak?

Mr. Attlee: That will be a matter for consideration. I understand that the Minister of Mines and the President of the Board of Trade will speak.

Mr. Bevan: Is it not a fact that the Debate will hinge upon considerations of strategy and decisions taken by the War Cabinet? Will it be possible to discuss these without the presence of Ministers directly responsible for the decisions?

Mr. Attlee: The hon. Member's question opens up rather a large vista, because eventually any matter must be affected by decisions of the War Cabinet. It is impossible that on every occasion there should be a member of the War Cabinet speaking on a Departmental matter.

Mr. Bevan: Is it not a fact that a decision was taken by the War Cabinet some time ago that men should not be released from the Army, and that this lies at the root of the matter? Is it possible to discuss this unless we have a statement from a member of the War Cabinet responsible for the original decision?

Mr. Attlee: We will see what arrangements are made for the Debate.

Mr. Buchanan: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider extending the normal time of Sitting on account of the tremendous importance of the matter?

Mr. Attlee: Certainly, that will-be considered.

Mr. Stokes: Is it proposed to extend the time on the second Sitting Day?

Mr. Attlee: That will be considered too.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: In view of the fact that Members in several sections of the House wish to discuss urgent matters which they consider to be of national importance, such as price stabilisation and industrial policy. Ministry of Information, and such like, will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that an opportunity is given for such discussions to take place before the House rises for what may possibly turn out to be a very prolonged holiday, considering that it is war-time?

Mr. Attlee: It is always possible to raise such matters on the Adjournment.

Mr. Robertson: Is it intended to provide time for a continuation of yesterday's Debate which was interrupted by the Polish question? Is not the welfare of Scotland as important as that of Poland?

Mr. Attlee: It is open to the hon. Member to raise it on the Adjournment.

Ordered,

"That all outstanding Votes in the Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments, and Supplementary Estimates, 1941, except Class VI., Vote II, Unclassified Services, Votes 13 and 15; and all outstanding Votes in the Navy, Army and Air Estimates, 1941, be considered in Committee of Supply; that this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, Supplementary Estimates for New Services may be considered in Committee of Supply; that Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before the hour appointed for the interruption of Business; that if the first two Votes shall have been agreed to by the Committee of Supply before the hour at which the Chairman is directed, by paragraph 6 of Standing Order No. 14, to put forthwith certain Questions, the Chairman shall proceed to put forthwith those Questions and that for the purposes of the Standing Order the Unclassified Services of the Civil Estimates shall be treated as a single class."—[Mr. Attlee.]

Ordered,

"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting, from

the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Attlee.]

ARREST OF A MEMBER.

The Secretary of State for War (Captain Margesson): I have to inform the House that I have received the command of His Majesty to acquaint the House that Major Sir Herbert Paul Latham, Baronet, a Member of this House, has been placed under arrest in order to be tried by court-martial in respect of alleged offences against military law.

Resolved,

"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to return the thanks of the House to His Majesty for His Most Gracious Message and for His tender regard to the Privileges of the House in the communication which he has been pleased to make to this House of the reason for putting Major Sir Herbert Paul Latham, Baronet, under arrest."—[Captain Margesson.]

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[19TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1941.

CLASS II.

INDIA AND BURMA SERVICES.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £ 1,460,743, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for India and His Majesty's Secretary of State for Burma, and a grant in aid of military expenditure from Indian Revenues."—[Note.— £ 720,000 has been voted on account.]

CLASS VIII.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £ 22,008,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Pensions, payments in respect of war pensions, gratuities and allowances, sundry contributions in respect thereof and other services."—[NOTE. — £15,000,000 has been voted on account.]

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I am glad to have another opportunity of presenting the Estimates of my Department to the Committee, because during the last 12 months many things have happened with regard to the responsibilities of my Ministry, and in many directions improvements have been made in the terms and conditions under which pensions and allowances are made. I must first say a word about the pensioners from the great war of 1914–18. Since the outbreak of that war my Department have spent £1,390,000,000 on pensions and allowances to those to whom that war brought injury and to the bereaved who lost their men folk. We expect to spend about £37,000,000 this year, and we can say, as in previous years, that this is more

in proportion to the population than is spent by any other country that was engaged in the last war. During the past financial year new awards of pensions were made to the number of 597. In spite of the fact that it is nearly 23 years since the last war finished, we are still looking into cases where it can be shown that disability has arisen because of war service. Although it has taken these many years to make itself manifest, we do take these cases into full consideration. At 31st March, 1941, the approximate number of pensioners and dependants from the great war was 818,000, a reduction of 3·3 per cent. on the preceding year. It is not possible to give a final figure for the year ending March, 1941, but it is estimated that the Department spent £38,064,100. Of this amount £35,554,100 was spent on pensions and allowances to officers, nurses, other ranks and their dependants, while the provision of medical service cost slightly more than £1,280,000.
The net amount of the present Estimates is £37,008,000, a decrease of £612,000 on the Estimates of the preceding year. This means that the normal level of annual decline has been maintained. For many years there has been a decline in the amount I have had to ask the Committee to supply for this purpose. The decrease is due to the deaths of pensioners and the fact that so many of the children who were pensioners have grown beyond pensionable age and are now earning their own living. The gross decrease this year is £1,137,100, against which must be set off an increase of £525,100 for administration. That is due to the extra responsibilities undertaken by my Department owing to the fact that we have to deal with the cases arising from this war. Pensions and allowances totalling £34,757,500 absorb about 94 per cent. of the total Estimate for pensions. Cash benefits to disabled officers and men account for £20,227,500 of this sum, while £14,480,000 is allocated to widows and dependants of deceased officers and men. An interesting feature of the Estimate is the overseas expenditure, which is about £1,200,000, of which £575,000 is in respect of pensioners resident in Canada and the United States. May I again remind the Committee that our pensioners from the great war are scattered throughout the four quarters of the earth, from the Arctic to the Antipodes?


For those who are, unfortunately, detained in countries now occupied by the enemy, I am glad to say that we have in many cases—in the majority of cases— been able to make arrangements with the United States of America for payment of some part of their pensions.

Mr. Tinker: Has the right hon. Gentleman been able to get through to these men?

Sir W. Womersley: Yes, through the United States of America. That, as I say, is in the majority of cases, and I am following it up. I want to see that these men are not at any rate left without some means of subsistence beyond what they will receive as detained persons in the countries concerned. Before passing on to the work of my Department in relation to the present war, I want to assure the Committee that I have not forgotten my duty to the veterans of the last war and to the dependants of those who were unfortunately killed in that war, or who have died since, as a result of war disabilities.
I will quote an example to show what I am trying to do. There is a class of widows known among ex-Service men and among those interested in pension cases as "17A widows." That is the description of a widow who had a modified pension because her husband's death was not wholly due to his disability. That is a very good provision and one which was gladly accepted by those who had claims. But there has been a recent development in connection with the Contributory Pensions Scheme brought in by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. A widow over 60 who has the ordinary contributory pension can have it supplemented if she can show that she is in need and incapable of work, and so on. That supplementation scheme is, I think, very accept able. The position is that many of these 17A widows had pensions of, say, 12s. or 15s. a week. Therefore it was better for them to accept our pension rather than apply for and receive a pension from the Ministry of Health. But now with the supplementation, it is possible for a widow who is turned 60 years of age, to get considerably more than the modified pension that we give. I felt sometimes that it was an injustice to the 17A widows that they should not have the supplementation. We have got over the difficulty, for the time being, as regards some of them, by

suggesting that they should transfer from the Ministry of Pensions to the Ministry of Health and thus get the benefit of the supplementation. I do not think, how ever, that that is an altogether satisfactory system because, even then, there is left a residue of widows whose husbands were not insured persons and who of course could not make any claim. I hope that I shall have no difficulty in persuading hon. Members to agree to a scheme in accordance with the legislation passed by this House dealing with the contributory pensions, whereby I can augment the modified pension to which I have referred, in exactly the same way as the Ministry of Health pension is being supplemented. I hope I shall not have any opposition from any hon. Members when I bring forward that proposition.
There is one thing which I should like to mention specially to the Committee, because I think it is wonderful. The Committee will be interested to know how many of the veterans of the last war have relinquished their pensions for the benefit of the national effort and have thus set an example which, to my mind, is worthy of being copied by many people who could well afford to relinquish their pensions—not disability pensions—for the benefit of the National Exchequer at this time of stress and trouble. I am glad to say that 446 pensioners have relinquished their pensions and that the annual value is £15,500. When we are discussing Budgets which run into thousands of millions, this sum does not seem much, but it is the principle behind it, it is the patriotic spirit behind it, of which we must take account. I want to make clear here in the House of Commons, the one place which can be regarded as a real sounding-board for the nation, what those men have done, in the hope, as I say, that someone else will follow their ex ample. Another 150 of our pensioners have lent their pensions free of interest during the war period and this will, no doubt, relieve at any rate a little part of the anxieties of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
There is another feature as regards these old veterans. A great effort has been made recently to raise money by means of war sayings. We actually started a savings scheme for our pensioners in 1936, and it has worked very well. When the war started and a great


call was made upon people to invest their savings with the Government in order to help on the great national effort, we had a wonderful response from our people and their gross savings in Trustee Savings Banks and in the Post Office Savings Bank—and we all know that that means actual help in the national effort— amounts to £534,000. We have had a war weapons year among our veterans, and that is the result. I think it is well worthy of mention.
Now I come to the work of the Department in the present war. I am sure hon. Members would like a little information on our experience of to-day. The responsibility of the Department has, of course, increased tremendously, because now we have to deal, not only with the three fighting Services, but with the Merchant Navy, the fishing fleet, the Home Guard, all the civil Defence organisations and the civilian population. We are also responsible for war service grants popularly known as hardship grants. I do not pro pose to deal with this subject in my opening remarks. I am glad to inform the Committee that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary undertook to make this branch of the work his special care and his special work when he came into my department. I gladly accepted that offer. It is a tremendous job and an additional burden, for my Department, on top of all the pensions schemes which have to be administered. I consider that my hon. Friend did a great service when he offered to take over that branch of the work. It is true that he consults me when quessions of major policy arise, just as I consult him on questions of major policy in regard to pension matters. But he has devoted a great deal of time to this work and has spared no effort in getting a thorough grasp of it and accordingly I hope that he will have an opportunity later to make a statement dealing exclusively with war service grants. Therefore that will not be my task at present.
I want to say that the additional work of dealing with all the various pensions schemes and the work of the war service grants has been tackled with resolution by those servants of the Crown who are serving in my Department. I would emphasise the fact that we have laid it down as a dictum, that, as far as is humanly possible, justice must be given

to all concerned. I do not mean by this, that I claim that our pensions sys tem is perfect. I should be a very foolish man if I did so. But, as I have said repeatedly, from the day I took office my mind was an open book. I was prepared to receive, not merely criticisms but constructive suggestions from any quarter of the House of Commons or from people outside the House of Commons who took an interest in these matters. I have, from time to time, when I have found it possible, acted on the advice given to me by my Advisory Committee and on propositions brought forward by hon. Members and I claim that I have been able to make improvements which have been of some value. I shall have a few words to say later on this subject.
Let us take, first of all, the Fighting Services—the Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force. Their cases are dealt with under the Royal Warrant, and corresponding instruments for the Navy and for the Air Force. As I explained last year, the Royal Warrant which was brought into being at the beginning of the war was undoubtedly one that did require amendment. It was introduced in a hurry, because if we had not got it on the Statute Book, there would have been no pensions for anyone, and that would have been worse than having to make improvements afterwards, but I do submit that the amended Warrant, which was laid upon the Table of this House a few days after our Debate last year, is a big improvement on the first one and goes a long way to remove many of the points to which objection was taken. But even with the new Warrant there were criticisms, and I have from time to time introduced improvements. I should like to occupy a few minutes in explaining these briefly, because it is as well that hon. Members should know exactly what we have done in the way of improvements. They have been introduced from time to time, sometimes by way of an answer to a Question, and it will be as well to have them collated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Then they will not only be available to hon. Members but men who think they have a claim will know exactly what they have to do.
In dealing with this matter I have had very valuable assistance from my


Advisory Committee, which consists of representatives of all parties in the House, and representatives of the British Legion and war pensions committees. I want to pay a tribute to the members of that Committee, who have sat day in and day out. There were 17 sittings, and we went through that old Warrant with a small-tooth comb, and many of the improvements which I have been able to make were brought about by suggestions made at those Committee meetings. I want to say "Thank you" to the members who have served on that Committee for the valuable work they have done. At meetings of the Committee careful consideration was given to the position of men who, having been passed by a recruiting board on enlistment and placed in Grade I medical category as fit for general service, were, after effective service, discharged on account of a disability shown to have existed before enlistment. Doctors usually refer to it as a constitutional disease. I announced in the House on 3rd July that I had come to the conclusion that where in such cases effective service is found to have caused a degree of aggravation in a previously existing condition the fact of discharge resulting from that condition would justify me— unless the man has given the Board untrue information as to medical facts which must have been known to him—in regarding the aggravation as material and thus bringing the case within the scope of the Royal Warrant. Obviously this can only be applied to cases in which men were passed for war service either on recruitment or mobilisation.

Mr. Buchanan: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the improvement of which he speaks?

Sir W. Womersley: The improvement is of such a nature that many hundreds of cases which were refused have, in this very short time, been granted pensions, so there must be some improvement. Under the Regulations in force before, if it could be shown that a man was suffering from a constitutional disease, though the doctor had failed to detect it at the examination on enlistment, but it could not be shown that there had been any incident in his military service that was likely to have caused that disease or even to have aggravated it, no pension was granted. Under the new rule you can

take it in this way: if the doctors who examined on behalf of the Ministry of Labour or on behalf of the Navy, Army or Air Force have said that a man is fit but the doctors have made a mistake, then the State must pay.

Mr. Buchanan: But you are not doing it.

Sir W. Womersley: I repeat that we are, and if the hon. Member sends me any cases where this ruling applies, I can assure him they will receive the fullest consideration. The hon. Member discussed it with me last week. The thing is not yet complete, as he knows, but we have the matter under consideration. I attempted to see him on Tuesday, but could not find him. Hon. Members must bear in mind that it is only a short time since this concession was made, and many of the cases which they may think have not received consideration are being reconsidered now or will be reconsidered if an application is made. But, as I explained to the House when I made this announcement, it is absolutely impossible for me to find these cases. I must depend upon people getting information about this new ruling through the Press, through Members of Parliament, and through the branches of the British Legion, and they must make a further application. I can assure this Committee that these applications are flowing in by hundreds a day, but we shall clear the lot up before very long, I hope. When I have finished with them I am certain that hon. Members will be perfectly satisfied. Of course no one can satisfy everybody. The man who could do it ought to have a halo and a department to himself.
There is another type of case which has given a good deal of difficulty, the on or off duty case, the old problem which we have had in connection with workmen's compensation and the like. In cases particularly where death has taken place and there is a widow, this problem is one that really calls for the fullest consideration. In the case, too, of disablement, where it is of such a nature that it means that a man will be at a great disadvantage for the rest of his life, the most careful consideration is called for. I announced on 10th July that I had been authorised to grant pensions at full Service rates where a member of the Armed Forces had been injured or


killed as a result of enemy bombing or enemy action of any kind or, as we put it in the official statement, by the discharge of any weapon by the enemy or by our own Forces in repelling the enemy. That means that if a man home on leave goes to a cinema and there is a blitz as a result of which he is killed, his widow can apply for and receive a service pension. Under the old ruling, all she could apply for was a civilian pension. That was exactly the same for every private soldier in the Army, but this concession means a considerable difference to men above that rank. From what I have heard since, this new ruling has met with approval from members of the Fighting Forces, who felt there was a grievance where a man was killed or injured by enemy action when on leave. There are also the cases of accidents arising from other than enemy action. That is a matter which I am considering very carefully to try to find some means of easing the position. I am not in a position to make a definite statement to-day.
There is another question which I ought to mention. I think it is wise to bear in mind that we cannot grant a pension in cases where it can be shown that there has been serious negligence or misconduct on the part of the man himself. It is an essential requirement of the Royal Warrant that the death or disablement of a member of the Forces must be certified to have been attributable to or materially aggravated by ser vice, and hitherto, in cases where there was an element of serious negligence or misconduct, I have been compelled to withhold the pension entirely. I think every Member of this Committee will agree that we must take into account whether there has been serious negligence or misconduct, but to "go the whole hog" and penalise the man altogether appears to me to be a little harsh. As a result of a careful survey of cases I found that in a number of instances this provision operated too severely, and I am glad to be able to say that I have secured approval to an amendment of the Royal Warrant which will give me discretion to make a reduced award, or even the full award where this appears to be appropriate. It is a matter of judging these cases on their merits to try to find out whether the alleged negligence or miscon-

duct has any real substance in fact or whether it is just a military point of view rather than a civilian point of view. I shall be able to deal with cases where there is misconduct or serious negligence, and that is a good step forward in dealing with rather difficult cases.
I come to the question of parents' need allowances. I have arranged for a full examination of the procedure relating to the award of need pensions to parents, with a view to applying, as far as is practicable and appropriate, principles similar to those embodied in the recent Determination of Needs Act for unemployment assistance. Those principles, applied in unemployment assistance, removed a great grievance which had existed for many years regarding the needs of parents, and we should apply it when dealing with pensions. I am trying to get a formula that will bring me some where near the lines laid down by Parliament in relation to unemployment assistance.

Mr. Buchanan: Does the right hon. Gentleman require an Act of Parliament to do that?

Sir W. Womersley: I think we can do it without. I will try other means.

Mr. Buchanan: Is it clear that people will have to apply again?

Sir W. Womersley: Undoubtedly. The Committee would think it very wrong of me if I did not consider those who may already have been considered under the old scale. I shall not be able to make the matter retrospective, but must start the new payments from the date from which I obtain Treasury sanction.
Another matter on which I have consulted my Advisory Committee is the payment of home treatment allowances. This is a very big thing for persons who are suffering by having to be treated while their families have to live upon the allowance. I hope to secure approval of a proposal that these allowances may be made up to the full rate for the first two weeks if home treatment continues beyond that period. Allowances are given for those who have gone into hospital. When they come out of hospital, probably they go back home in the convalescent stage. We have not been able to make them the full-rate


allowance in their homes, but I am seeking permission to do so, so that I can make dead sure that no man or any member of his family has to go to the P.A.C. for any form of relief. I am determined that, so far as is humanly possible, those who suffer as the result of the war shall not have to go to public assistance. There will be some cases, because we cannot always make dead sure of 100 per cent., but if we aim at 100 per cent. and hit 98 per cent., the result is not too bad. I am determined to prevent people having to go to the P.A.C, if it is at all possible for me to do so.
We have had consultations upon the Committee on the question of assessment for specific injury. This is a matter which has caused a great deal of distress in some parts of the country. Certain organisations make a special line of it concerning the loss of an arm, or a leg, and so on. I have gone very carefully into the Schedule of the 1919 Warrant, which is supposed to be a very good one. I have had very few criticisms of it, but in going through that scale of assessment I found that improvements could be made. The scale I have now put into operation corresponds very closely with the 1919 Warrant, and in some instances there are definite improvements. Another little point relates to the Home Guard. When the Home Guard was set up, its members were promised the same pensions for themselves, or their widows and depend ants, in respect of injury or death on duty, as those applying in the same circum stances to private soldiers. I have gone very carefully into this Home Guard question, and have consulted those who could be helpful to me. I have reached the point at which I can make a decision and issue a Royal Warrant giving formal effect to the provision that a man in the Home Guard, when on duty, comes under the same Rules and Regulations as a member of the Armed Forces of the Crown.

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke): Or when proceeding to duty?

Sir W. Womersley: That is a matter which comes under the on-and-off-duty question which I have already mentioned. I have that matter under consideration for all classes of cases and not merely for the Home Guard. The Committee will no

doubt be interested to know that although the Royal Warrant has not actually been placed upon the Table of the House, I have taken a chance in this matter, and have made 200 awards already to members of the Home Guard who have been injured. If I get into a row I shall look to hon. Members to help me out of a difficulty.

Mr. Tinker: We shall always defend a good action.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Can my right hon. Friend say anything about the representations made by the Scottish British Legion for the immediate creation of appeal tribunals? He is no doubt aware that the men are very anxious on this matter.

Sir W. Womersley: That question was raised about a fortnight or three weeks ago. When the statement is made about war service grants, no doubt these questions will be put forward by hon. Members.
On the civilian side, the position has been revised on two occasions during the last 12 months. Knowing, that we were starting on something new, in which we were without precedent to guide us, we frequently looked into the matter. I never claimed that the first scheme we put forward would be perfect. I said in the House that I welcomed any suggestions for improvement and that I would endeavour from time to time to put the suggestions into effect. We have done so, and I claim that we have considerably improved the scheme, which now covers the whole civilian population, whether gainfully employed or not. The non-gainfully employed receive lower rates of benefit. The standard rates of injury allowance have been increased since 1939 by amounts varying from 5s. to 17s. a week. In cases where the injured man is in hospital, there is now no deduction for maintenance if he is married or is maintaining a wholly dependent relative in his home. That is an improvement which I think is welcomed on al sides. The rates of children's allowances have been increased, and instead of terminating in all cases on the fifteenth birthday, they are now payable, in cases of continuing education, up to 31st July next following the sixteenth birthday, which gives those children who are attending secondary schools a real chance of finishing their education with out financial handicap.
Again, I have been able to introduce special temporary allowances, of 50s. a week for 10 weeks, for widows, so that they may at any rate have money to carry on during the transitional period between the date of their husband's death and the issue of a war pension. If it happens that the pension, when it is awarded, comes to more than 50s. a week, I will see that the balance of the money is handed to the widow, and that she does not lose anything by that. If it is less than that sum, she does not have to hand anything back to me, but receives the 50s. flat rate for that period. In these cases, I may say, we do not wait for the widows to apply. The instructions I have given to my officers are that immediately they hear that casualties have been caused—and they get reports every morning—in any particular area they have to be on the spot at once, and start with the first payments. It would be most distressing if the widows and de pendants of men who have been killed by enemy action were left even for a week without money to carry on. That is the reason why I have issued that order to my staffs. If we have no office in the particular town, we open a temporary one immediately. Usually we try to come to some arrangement with the local authority to have a room at the town hall, if it has not been blitzed, or at the Assistance Board offices, so that we can deal with our cases at the same time as they are dealing with applications for war damage and so forth. I find that that arrangement is working very well indeed, and we keep these offices open as long as possible.
There is another improvement which I have made, although I am afraid it has caused a little difficulty sometimes and has caused trouble for the Ministry. That is in connection with burial allowances. The arrangement made by the Government at the beginning was that local authorities were empowered to provide free burial for anyone killed by enemy action, and if that procedure were carried through, no one would have to pay at all. There are, however, many people who do not like what they call a public funeral. They think it savours somewhat of a pauper's funeral, but I can assure hon. Members that that is not so, because it has bee a specially laid down that such

funerals arranged by the local authorities should be on exactly the same lines as the funerals arranged for members of the Fighting Forces by the Army, Navy or Air Force, and, in the case of ex-Service men who receive a military funeral, it should be made a matter of honour that coffins should be draped with the Union Jack and in general made as solemn and reverent as possible, so that in no sense whatever does it appear to be a pauper's funeral.
There are still many people, however, who say they would prefer to bury their own dead, so this is what we are doing. Where the victim is a Civil Defence volunteer or a gainfully-occupied person— that is, an employed person—and is the head of the household, we make an allowance direct to the widow of £7 10s., the same allowance that is made to local authorities by the Treasury for their funeral arrangements, and we also make the same allowance where the man is the sole supporter of the household and where it is a really dependent relative who makes application. I have had letters sent to me from people asking for this allowance and saying they have had to pay £22 or even up to £30 for a funeral. I deprecate anything in the shape of profiteering in a matter like making arrangements for funerals, and I am afraid that in some of these cases people select too expensive things in the way of coffin ornaments and so on, although perhaps some have been overcharged, but if we did not do our best to persuade people to allow the local authority to arrange the burials, it would in many cases become almost a ramp. I feel that the arrangements made by the Government are on sound lines, that they will prevent profiteering and see to it that there is no hardship. In view, however, of the sentimental feeling that exists among many people, we have made these arrangements, but I cannot promise to ex tend them beyond providing for the breadwinner.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that the amount he has fixed in connection with this very useful arrangement will not have an appearance of stinginess or thread-bareness, which is the very thing he is doing his best to avoid?

Sir W. Womersley: No, I have made inquiries myself, and I will tell the Committee what caused most of the trouble.


It was thought wise to provide a lot of coffins for the first blitz, because we all expected it to be very severe, and I am afraid some of the coffins provided could be described as of a shoddy character. When I heard of that I called attention to it, and they have been cleared away. I am told that local authorities can make arrangements with local undertakers to have a perfectly good funeral for £7 10s. per person, and if anything extra is charged, it is because the relatives want perhaps an oak coffin instead of just a plain coffin, or want brass handles and things like that, which cost a lot of money. It may be due to that, or it may be that local authorities are able to make better arrangements than private individuals can. If it was found that it did mean that, I should have no hesitation in bringing the matter before the Government to see whether anything could be done. The grant from the Treasury to the local authorities is £7 10s. per person, and they, of course, will naturally spend nothing out of the rates on top of that. At least, they should not do so, or else it begins to look at once like a pauper's funeral.
I have considerably extended the Schedule of Civil Defence organisations, in the light of circumstances and of advice I have received, and it now includes the fire-prevention services, fire watching, and roof spotting services set up at business premises and by local authorities, and I think it pretty well covers everybody who is doing anything in connection with Civil Defence work. If I find that anyone has been left out, I will try to get him in if I can, but I think the list is now fairly complete. I am sure the Committee will be interested to know how many cases we have had to deal with in this civilians scheme, and I am now in a position to give some figures, which, of course, I could not do in regard to the Services, for obvious reasons. Since the inception of the scheme injury allowances have been granted in 72,000 cases up to date. Here I would like to express my gratitude to the Assistance Board, who placed their wide organisation at my service and whose local officers have acted as my agents in the administration of these allowances.
I want it to be borne in mind that the civilians scheme is divided into two sections: injury allowances, which may last for six months, unless it is shown

before the expiry of six months that the person is permanently injured, in which case a pension is granted; and pensions, which are dealt with from my Department after six months. For the first six months I depend upon the local officers of the Assistance Board to act as my agents, and to see that the money is paid promptly to the people concerned. They have rendered very good service to me, and I would like to acknowledge that. In the great majority of cases I am glad to say that the incapacity has passed away, but disablement pensions have been awarded in over 1,000 cases where there is permanent injury, and will become pay able in a number of other cases in the next few months. The number of pensions granted in respect of death is some where around the 10,000 mark. Of these, 8,000 are widows' pensions, the remainder being parents' and orphans' pensions. That gives some idea of the work of my Department in that connection during the last 12 months.
With regard to the Mercantile Marine side, both in the case of those injured by enemy action, and the dependants of those killed by enemy action, there is a revised compensation scheme which follows the main lines of the Order-in-Council for the Navy, with some modifications in its application called for by difference in the conditions of service. If a wounded member of the Royal Navy is detained in hospital, his Service pay and allowances continue, but if a member of the Mercantile Marine is landed from his ship, under the old system, his pay ceased. The question of pension does not arise in the case of a Service man until his final discharge from the Service, whereas it may arise very quickly in regard to merchant seamen. Therefore I tried to find a method of being helpful to these men. In the case of a merchant seaman who sustains a war injury, as I said before, it has to be considered by my Ministry with out delay, and generally when he is still receiving treatment. I decided therefore to deal with these cases in a special way, and during the initial period of six months following a war injury a mariner should be paid compensation at the highest rate for his rank so long as he was rendered incapable of returning to sea by the in jury, and was in need of treatment for it. Provision for this has been incorporated in the revised scheme. I am glad


to say I have been able to make more generous provision for the widow of a mariner: for the first 10 weeks of her widowhood when he dies from enemy action, or if he dies within six months of a war injury, by extending to her the special allowance of 50s. per week, which we now give to civilians.
I have also made arrangements, in collaboration with other Departments, for a grant-in-aid of £7 10s. towards the funeral expenses to be made in the case of a man of the Mercantile Marine who lost his life through enemy action and is not buried by the State. The payment of allowances to wives or other dependants of mariners who are captured or detained by the enemy is a point about which I have found a great deal of difficulty. There have been a large number of merchant seamen captured by commerce raiders and kept prisoners, in some cases in quite large numbers. Their wives or dependent relatives are now eligible for the allowances I have mentioned for as long as their men folk remain in captivity. In the revised scheme I have been able to improve the rates of these allowances. Moreover, the allowances for children of detained mariners are now increased to the higher rates payable for those of a totally disabled member of the Armed Forces.
Shipping companies continue to assist me in carrying out my duty of awarding compensation to war-injured mariners and to the dependants of those killed by enemy action by furnishing prompt information as to crews whose vessels have been lost or damaged in conflict with the enemy. I referred last year to the generous treatment given by the shipowners—

Mr. Beechman: Are we to understand that the provisions to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred apply throughout the fishing industry?

Sir W. Womersley: Certainly. As representing Grimsby, at one time regarded as the largest fishing port in the world, I know that we cannot leave the fishermen out. They are playing their part every time they go out to fish, in danger of mines, attacks from the air, or attacks from submarines. I think we all agree that they deserve the same treatment as the Mercantile Marine, and they are going to get it. The shipowners have

really come up to the scratch when I have asked them to help me in dealing with members of crews landed at a port from a ship wrecked or lost by enemy action. Negotiations in connection with this particular class of man have been successful. Arrangements have been made to assist them, and I have also made arrangements with the majority of the owners of the fishing boats to fall in with the same-arrangements. Both the shipping companies and the majority of owners of the fishing vessels have also generously agreed, in the case of men injured by enemy attack, and still disabled at the end of the month—payment is for a month only—to supplement any award made by my Department in respect of a second month.
I wish to deal with my medical service. I do want Members to realise what we are doing with regard to hospitals and hospital services. At the outbreak of the war we had nine of these hospitals, with a bed strength of 1,833 beds. It is now 7,647, as against 2,366 a year ago. The increase is due to the completion of ex tensions of existing premises, the acquisition of additional premises, and the use of an E.M.S. ad hoc hospital. An additional ad hoc hospital of 600 beds is nearing completion. Some of my hospitals have suffered very severely from damage by bombs. In every case the staff showed bravery, fortitude, energy and zeal in dealing with fires and securing the safety of the patients. One of these hospitals received very severe damage on more than one occasion, and every patient had to be evacuated. There was not a single fatality among the patients, although two of the staff who were fire-watching lost their lives. I think that is a great tribute to the staff of that hospital. We have had damage in other hospitals. I am glad to say that my staff in every case have done their best to alleviate any discomfort or distress among the patients. Certainly they have succeeded in averting casualties which might easily have occurred. The staff consists of 285 medical men, 185 of whom are employed whole-time, and 100 on a part-time basis; 753 nurses, 183 of whom are on the permanent nursing staff, and 570 are members of the nursing reserve and the auxiliary nursing service. They are all rendering splendid help. During the past year in-patient treatment was


given in 5,300 cases, while 2,275 cases received out-patient treatment. There have been 1,745 home-treatment cases, and in addition 5,267 officers, nurses and men have received treatment in mental hospitals. In the same period approximately 21,500 medical examinations, excluding limbs and appliances, were made by Ministry medical officers. Of these, the number of Boards was 12,500, and treatment 9,000. The equivalent total for the previous year was 11,500; we have under treatment at the present 4,322 cases, the figure for March last year being 3,680. These figures relate to ex-service cases. In addition, 6,605 Service and civilian casualties, chiefly serving soldiers, receiving in-patient treatment have been dealt with in my hospitals.
In regard to the training of disabled men for some useful work when discharged from our hospitals, I am not in a position to make any definite pronouncement, but one of the biggest mistakes we made after the last war in dealing with ex-Service men was in not putting into operation a thoroughly sound scheme, thought out beforehand and tested, to give these men a chance to do something more than merely draw a pension. I know these men well, and I know that the majority are not so much worrying about the pension—they want a pension, of course; and they have a right to it—but they want to be trained for something which will occupy them usefully, so that they may regard themselves as citizens of some consequence. I have been to every one of my hospitals; and as I talk to these men I hear one thing that affects me. A lot of them have lost limbs. One who lost both legs in the evacuation of Dunkirk said tome, "What I. am wondering about is whether I am to be thrown on the scrap heap when I come out. If so, I would rather die." I was able to assure that man, and many others, that the Government were considering very carefully putting into operation a scheme not merely for the rehabilitation of these men, but for training them for a useful occupation.
1 wish I could say that we had all our plans complete. We have not; but I can assure hon. Members that a state-men will be made in the near future which I am certain will give satisfaction all round. As my right hon. Friend the

Minister of Labour indicated in this House on 19th June, such a scheme has been framed. It has to be a joint scheme between my Department, the Ministry of Labour, and the Ministry of Health. I am concerned with the compensation side, it is true; but my duty does not end until I have seen that these men get something more than mere money compensation. The Ministry of Labour come in because they have already established training centres, which, I think, could be appropriately used for the purpose; and the Ministry of Health, because they have their hospital service. I am advised by eminent medical men that training with out proper rehabilitation can often be very harmful. The two must go together. We are getting on very well, and I hope that before long either my right hon. Friend or I will be able to make a statement in the House about the lines on which we are working. It will hold out for these men and their wives and families the assurance that we are not going to leave them uncared for. Although we have not the real scheme in operation, instructions have been issued to all my doctors to ask each man, where necessary, before he leaves whether he is prepared to undergo some form of training, or whether he has a job to go to. The old employers of many of these men have, most generously and patriotically, put them into jobs which they can do. In other cases, I am making arrangements with various organisations to train these men. I want a Government scheme on a wide liberal basis for dealing with these men, so that they can indeed feel that they are part and parcel of the useful population of this country.
Now I come to a point about war orphans. They are a problem with which I have to deal. Not only have I to deal with Service orphans, the kind of war orphans that we had after the last war, but I have to deal with the children of civilians who have lost their parents through enemy action. In many cases—and this will show the benefit of evacuation—children have been evacuated to the country and the parents who have stayed in the cities have been killed. The task of looking after war orphans has been assigned to me, and I have gladly accepted the responsibility as acting as their guardian. At present we have something like 600 of them. It is my duty to ensure


that they are properly cared for, and to see that whatever pension is eventually granted is spent for their benefit. I felt that it was better to leave those who have been evacuated in their evacuation centres, where they are under the supervision of their teachers, with someone constantly on the watch over them. In many cases near relatives have been allowed to keep these children. I think it is a good thing that that should happen if the homes are suitable. I have a large number of letters from very kindly people all over the country offering to take these children. In many cases it would be a great advantage to the children to go to such homes, which are sometimes even better than the homes that they lived in before their parents were killed. I want to thank those people, and to tell them that we are not putting their offers on one side, although we are not sending them children immediately. We shall come to a time when these children will have to be provided with homes, and those offers will then receive the fullest consideration.
What am I doing to deal with the problem? I am glad to say that the hon. Member for Dartford (Mrs. Adamson), who came into my Department as an assistant Parliamentary private secretary to myself, has undertaken the supervision of this work. I do not know anybody better qualified. She is a family woman, who has brought up her own family; and who, I think, has done it very well. I am certain that she will do this job excellently for me, and that she will relieve me of a great deal of anxiety. In addition, I have appointed selected women officers in every region, whose job it will be to visit the homes where the children are living, to see that they are getting proper care and attention, and as good a chance of the best things of life as is possible. We have also to see whether we can help in respect of education and so on. I am in touch with voluntary organisations which have offered to help as required. Everything possible will be done to see that these children do not suffer too severely from the fact that they have lost their parents. The Lord Mayor of London has promised to give most careful consideration to any case I recommend that he can help out of funds at his disposal. I am certain that other people will help me in this matter. Anyhow, I

regard it as part and parcel of my duty to see that these children are properly looked after and do not lose too much by the fact that they have lost their parents.
Now I would like to mention my staff. At the beginning of the war my staff numbered 3,118, of whom 824 were employed in hospitals. Since then 5,958 additional staff have been engaged since 1st July this year, and of these 1,547 are employed in the War Service Grants Branch. In view of the great responsibility we now have to face, it may be that I shall have to increase my staff. If there is one thing me must bear in mind, it is that if we are to relieve any distress, we must relieve it at once. To do that may mean additional staff, and I am certain that the Committee will not begrudge my engaging any additional staff if I find it is necessary. I would like to pay a tribute to the men on my staff who are sometimes forgotten. They are in Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Cardiff and many other such places, right away from headquarters. They have to tackle problems immediately they arise and use their initiative and common sense in dealing with them, and I am glad to say that as a result of my visits to the regional offices I am convinced that I have first-class men operating in these regional areas. We have 14 officers at 14 regional offices scattered throughout the country, four major sub-offices and 14 part-time sub-offices. It must be remembered that these regional officers can only deal with cases arising from the rank and file. Officers' cases are dealt with at headquarters where I have the Officers' Friend Branch who are always willing and able to advise applicants. One served in the Navy and retired with very high rank, and the other served in the Army, and I want to pay a tribute to the wonderfully good work these men have done and are doing.
To all my staff I want to say, "Thank you. I have had loyal support from you throughout the time I have been Minister of Pensions, and I know you feel that your job is work of national importance. I want you to continue to think so." I also want to thank the members of the 159 war pensions committees and the large number of workers associated with them through out the country who have given ungrudgingly of their time to deal with local


questions. There is also the British Legion, which has rendered me good ser vice. Although at times they have criticised me, I hope they will go on doing so, because there is nothing like constructive criticism for getting the best out of us. In connection with the civilians scheme, I want to pay a special tribute to the T.U.C. representatives, and those who represented the Employers' Confederation which met me on various occasions when we were trying to formulate a scheme which would be acceptable to the people of this country. They rendered me most valuable service.
I am near the end of my story, and I will reply to any major questions raised during the Debate if I have time. I would, however, like to add this: I under took this office with no light heart. As one who has had considerable experience as a member of a war pensions committee since 1922 and as a member of the British Legion since its formation, I knew that whoever undertook the office of Minister of Pensions, particularly in war-time, would have one of the most difficult jobs of any Minister of the Crown. After two years' experience I know that this is so, but I felt it was work of national importance. After all, we rehabilitate property that has been destroyed, but the job of the Minister of Pensions is to rehabilitate human beings and give them some hope in life for the future. It may be that the instruments I have brought before the Committee have not been altogether perfect, but I have an open mind, and I am always prepared to try and meet other points of view. I have asked my Department to bear in mind that in dealing with these cases they must not say, "How can we prevent this man from getting a pension?" but must look at them from the point of view of "How can we, under the Regulations as laid down by Parliament, give this man or woman a pension?" That is the spirit, and although Members may have had cases brought to their notice in which they think there has been hard ship and we may not have given 100 per cent. satisfaction, I would say to them that if they have any difficult cases, they should not be afraid to bring them to me or to my Parliamentary Secretary. We are prepared to spend any time that is necessary to deal with them as a personal matter. We want Members to feel that they can come to us and get a square deal,

and I hope they will avail themselves of this offer.

Major Milner: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Pensions has made a most interesting and informative speech and has done so with that happy combination of frankness, good humour, businesslike ability and sense of human sympathy which we have learned to expect from him. If I may say so, he has done it with the modesty which we know is a characteristic of Yorkshiremen. He has made a somewhat lengthy, but necessarily lengthy, review having regard to the amount of ground be had to cover. His Ministry has had few opportunities of telling the House and the Committee of its work, and we have all appreciated that the activities of the Ministry cover a vastly increased range of duties and functions nowadays, com pared with what they had to cover in the past. I think I can speak for most of the Committee when I say that the right hon. Gentleman has justified his appointment as Minister of Pensions.
Indeed, as I have been sitting here and listening to his review, it has occurred to me whether the time has not come when the status of the Ministry of Pensions ought to be raised. I am sure the Minister will not misunderstand me when I say that the Minister of Pensions has not always been considered in the past as the Minister of a most important Department, and if my recollection serves me aright, the salaries, certainly of the Minister and, I think, of his staff, are not on the same level as those of other Departments. I myself feel that consideration might be given by the appropriate authorities to an improvement in the status and salaries of the Department, which would be a de served tribute to the work the Minister has done, and probably will have to do, and for the very largely increased importance which the Department holds during a war. The fact that it has increased in importance is also shown by the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, and I was glad to hear the tribute which the Minister paid to him and also to the hon. Lady the Member for Dartford (Mrs. Adamson) in the work she is undertaking.
The Minister indicated a number of changes based on advice received from the Statutory Advisory Committee, on


which I have the privilege of serving, and I would like to comment on one or two of those changes. The right hon. Gentle man told us of the concession in regard to men who are passed as Grade I but are subsequently discharged, and to whom the Minister is now in a position to give a pension. I gather that some of my hon. Friends seem to be under the impression that this concession makes no change, but I would point out that there is really quite a substantial change. I understand —and I hope the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that previously it had to be proved to the hilt that the aggravation was material, and that no responsibility was taken by the State for the fact that it had carried out a medical examination which might not have disclosed the existence of some constitutional disease. Now, if a man is passed Grade I and is after wards discharged because of a worsening or an aggrevation of his condition, even if that condition is thought to have been, or is even proved to have been, pre-existent to the recruitment of the man, but was perhaps not discovered by the medical examination, the very fact that the soldier is discharged because of that condition justifies the Minister in awarding a pension. That is a distinct improvement, and although it is not quite what some of us have fought for under the slogan "Fit for Service, fit for pension," I want to congratulate the Minister on making the change.
The right hon. Gentleman told us something about the pensions and allowances made to men who are injured, and to the widows of men who are killed, when off duty. That concession is applicable only to full-time members of the Armed Forces who are injured or killed by enemy action, and therefore, it does not appear to extend to the Home Guard, who are not full-time members of the Armed Forces; but I should have thought that a member of the Home Guard, if injured by enemy action when off duty, ought to be entitled to a pension, and, if killed, that his widow ought to have a pension. I do not think the fact that he is not a full-time member of the Armed Forces ought to affect the situation.
There is also the large number of deaths due to accidents, in which cases the Ministry have not so far found it possible to make grants. It seems to me

—and I want to press this strongly upon the Minister—that when a man is in the Armed Forces, and certainly when he is in uniform, he is always on duty. At no time is he his own master, at any time he can be called upon; he is not a free agent; and, therefore, it is my sub mission that if he is injured he ought to receive the appropriate allowance or pension, and if he is killed his wife or dependent relatives ought to receive it, whether the accident occurs when he is 'on duty or off duty. I feel sure that if some concession of that nature is not made, these cases will be a source of considerable trouble, because ordinary men and women cannot understand why, when their relatives in the Armed Forces are killed, possibly because they are in the Armed Forces and have to be at a particular place at a particular time, although not on duty, a pension or allowance is not paid. A further concession ought to be made in this direction. If it is not possible for the Ministry to go all the way, it might be possible to grant a pension or allowance when the injury or death arises out of war conditions.
For instance, there have been occasions when men going home from the cinema, and so on, have been killed in the black out, a condition brought about by the war. It appears to me that a concession might be made in such cases, even if it is not possible for the Ministry to go further. Certainly, the concession ought to be made in the case of men going to or returning from leave, or out on a pass for an hour, the afternoon, or the evening, on the authority of their superior officers. When men are injured or killed in such cases, I think the Government ought to accept responsibility. I believe that was done in the last war; certainly, when men were on leave from France they received an allowance or pension if they were injured—and their wives or dependants received one if they werekilled—while going to or returning from leave, even though the injury or death occurred in their own town.
In particular, I feel that no widow of a man in His Majesty's Forces, killed on or off duty, ought to be without a pension of some kind. If it is not possible for the Minister to alter the Warrant, as I think it ought to be altered, to justify the award of a pension, it ought to be possible in some way, perhaps through the Ministry of Health, to make some pro-


vision for such a man or for his de pendants, so that no widow of a serving man is in any circumstances, other than the circumstance of her own misconduct, without a pension in respect of the death of her own husband.
The Minister mentioned the scale for specific injuries. As a member of the Statutory Advisory Committee, I have had an opportunity of inspecting that scale, and I am of the opinion that now, although not originally, it very much approximates to, and is as good as, the 1919 scale. I think those who have been agitating for so long in regard to this scale may now be well satisfied. On the question of rates, I still feel, as I am sure many hon Members do, that the differentiation which still exists between those pensioned in the Great War and those pensioned in the present war cannot be justified. The rates are based on the cost of living, and although on paper the cost of living has not yet reached the 1919 level on which the pensions in respect of services in the Great War were calculated, I think that, having regard to the increased cost of living and the higher standards nowadays, "to say nothing of increased rents and rates, there can be no doubt that if a proper inquiry were conducted, it would show that the present rates are too low and ought to be raised. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will institute an inquiry into the matter and bring the real position before the Statutory Advisory Committee. He has con ducted inquiries into a number of matters that have been put before him, and if he would make an inquiry on the lines I have indicated, we should all feel a good deal happier. Let us have the facts so that we may form an opinion on these matters.
Incidentally, there was a very consider able lapse of time before the right hon. Gentleman called together the Statutory Advisory Committee. I know that there was a good excuse for that delay; he had to get the agreement of other Departments, in particular the Treasury, the Warrant had to be printed, and so on; and, therefore, I do not in the least blame him; but I suggest that it would be an advantage if the Committee could meet regularly. If I may say so without offence, it is not quite good enough for the Committee simply to meet when it can be useful to the right hon. Gentleman or his Department. The Committee would

like to keep in close touch with the administration of the Department and would like to be in a position to make suggestions and give advice to the Minister, and, therefore, I hope he may think it right to call the Committee together in any event quarterly, whether or not he has any matters to bring before it himself. I hope also that greater use will be made of the local war pension committees. They fulfil a very useful function in their neigh bourhood, and I think they might be made more use of to-day.
I do not wish to take up too much time, because I know many hon. Members wish to speak, but before I sit down I should like to refer to three or four other points. The first matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister relates to the establishment of appeal tribunals. I must press this point most strongly, because in my view it is essential that these pension appeal tribunals should be set up at once. I understand my right hon. Friend is in favour of such tribunals and that he agrees they should be set up in due course when conditions permit. He argues that conditions are not easy at present, that there are travelling difficulties, difficulties in connection with air raids, and difficulties in obtaining medical men and so on. Frankly, I cannot myself accept those reasons as good enough, particularly as we have had a lull in air raids during the last few months. We have had committees set up for conscientious objectors, appeal tribunals for aliens, food committees, and all sorts of other committees, all of which are of no greater importance than, if they are as important as, pension appeal tribunals, and I press my right hon. Friend to establish such tribunals at once. It seems to me that half-a-dozen tribunals spread about the country would be sufficient. They would have the greatest possible psychological value, and they would obviate a good deal of the delay which has been taking place. They would remove discontent among isolated cases, and do a great deal to remove any dissatisfaction which might exist.
The Committee and the Minister will remember that my right hon. Friend has power to strike off widows from the list of those in receipt of pensions if they are guilty of what the Minister terms "un worthy conduct." Most of us in our time have had to bring cases of this sort to the


notice of the Minister. I suggest that in some way or other it should be made clear to widows who are granted pensions in future under what conditions it is possible for the Minister to withdraw a pension. That would get rid of a great deal of misunderstanding; it would be to the advantage of the Minister and would save a certain amount of suffering to widows. I think it could be done without offending the susceptibilities of widows against whom in most cases no charge could possibly be made.
It is not my duty to cover the whole ground, and I will, therefore, content myself by asking for information on one or two other matters which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to deal with in his reply. The Minister did not give us figures for the cases dealt with and the amounts paid out on the advice of the War Service Grants Committee, but I understood him to say that that aspect would be left to the Parliamentary Secretary. As I understand it, the administration of that Committee is largely in the province of the Parliamentary Secretary, and I am sure we on this side of the House, and, I think, the whole Committee, will feel that the hon. Member for Wentworth, who occupies that position, and has been in the House for a good number of years, can be relied upon to do all that can be done to relieve hardship and want, which are inseparable in many of these cases.
The right hon. Gentleman dealt with orphans, but he did not give us the number. It does not seem to me that it would be of value to the enemy to tell us whether there are 50 or 2,000. Orphans deserve our help and sympathy, and they are a considerable responsibility for my right hon. Friend—at any rate, I am glad he has delegated that responsibility in large measure to the capable hands of my hon. Friend the Member for Dart-ford. Then my right hon. Friend spoke of Civil Defence. I do not know what the Committee feel about this question, but I consider we have not yet had enough experience of the working of these provisions to enable us to form a proper judgment. I cannot help feeling, however, that perhaps the payments are not as much as they ought to be; but let us admit that we have had no substantial measure of complaint. Probably it would be wiser

to wait a little until the position has become clearer. I was glad my right hon. Friend mentioned training, which is a most important question. In my view the majority of men will put up with a smaller pension than they expect or deserve, but they will not put up with being, as my right hon. Friend termed it, put on the scrap heap without hope of work now or after the war. That applies all round, to civilians and military alike, and I should like the Minister on some occasion to tell us what are the proposals of the Ministry in regard to this question.
We shall hold the Government responsible to see that the condition of affairs which existed after the last war, and was, in many instances, continued until quite lately, does not happen again, and that provision is made for all those injured in the Armed Forces, Civil Defence or in any capacity in this war, in which the whole of the population is engaged. The question of providing work for all those injured must be in the forefront of the programme of reconstruction for any Government, and I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to play his part in that work. But in the meantime, we shall be glad to have particulars at the earliest possible moment. I conclude by saying that I am sure my right hon. Friend and all those associated with him are to be congratulated on the results of their activities. They have given greater satisfaction than any other Minis try which preceded them.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: I will not dwell on the points which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) raised, because I know he has had great experience on these matters as a member of the Central Advisory Committee. We have had a very interesting speech from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions, and we have again to congratulate him to-day. I think a Minister of Pensions has to possess some qualities which are rather special. At all events he must possess both head and heart. If he was all heart and very little head, he would be very unpopular with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he was all head and very little heart, I am afraid pensioners would soon want to replace him. I think my right hon. Friend combines, with great knowledge of the subject and great interest in it, a good deal of shrewdness


and ability, and he has in addition the milk of human kindness, which softens many susceptibilities. The House is more pleased with the system of pensions and their administration now than it used to be. If it was more critical, we should have had a much fuller House than we had to listen to the interesting review that we have had to-day. We have had a better start in the matter of pensions than we had in the last war. The scales on the whole, while not completely satisfactory, are fairly reasonable and the amendments made in the Royal Warrant last June have made them more so. We shall very soon be approaching the stage mentioned in the Royal Warrant of 1919. A pledge was given by the late Prime Minister, Mr. Chamberlain, and, of course, by the Minister of Pensions, that they are bound by the terms of the War rant to review the scale when the cost of living reaches five points over the figure of 215. In the last war we had five reviews of the scale; we have had one review in this war. There is no question that there is definite inflation in this country. It is gradually increasing, and I am afraid my right hon. Friend will before many months again have to review the scale, as I am sure he will be pre pared to do.
I think we can afford to be generous in the matter of pensions. The area covered by pensions is now very big. The three Services, the A.R.P. personnel, seamen, the pilotage service and, as a matter of fact, the whole civilian population are covered. Fortunately casualties in this war are almost insignificant as compared with the last war, and we must hope that that will remain so. The casualties on the civilian side are rather heavy, but the casualties in the Services so far have remained low. We must remember that the pensions net is very tightly drawn. The legislature has taken care that not many fish get through it who have not earned it. For instance, the Royal Warrant of 1939 specifies that evidence of disability must be good and sufficient evidence which leaves no doubt in the minds of the certifying medical authority that it is attributable to war service.
My right hon. Friend has made some very important concessions. One of the biggest he has made is in respect of disability contracted before service of which there was an aggravation during service.

It is qualified, of course, by the word "effective." A man must have given effective service. I can quite see that that is necessary. You might have a man who had given a week's service claiming a pension on account of a disability which he had before. I do not know what is meant by effective service, whether it is defined in point of time or the intensity or character of the service, whether he was engaged in a great strain or involved in actual fighting. I take it that the character of the service will be taken into consideration. The concession that has been made on the question of negligence and misconduct will give great satisfaction. I have not seen the revised schedule of specific injuries, but the hon. And gallant Member who spoke before me, and who is acquainted with it, seems to be very satisfied.
The Minister of Pensions, more than any other Minister of the Crown, is absolutely in the hands of the doctors. He has no power to grant a pension unless he has a certificate of a medical officer that the disability is due to, or aggravated by, war service. On the whole the medical ser vice of the Ministry is very good. The medical officers are very able men, and all the staff are highly qualified, highly skilled professional men in their particular work. We have to remember that medicine is a very vague science. Lord Baldwin spoke in the House some years ago about the many-sidedness of truth. There are many branches of medicine, especially in regard to illnesses. A complaint like neurasthenia has all sorts of characteristics and we know the divergence of view which is expressed in medical evidence in compensation cases in the courts. Medicine being a vague science, we must expect sometimes a little human frailty in the medical officers of the Ministry, but I think that on the whole they attempt to render good, conscientious and sincere service.
My right hon. Friend has hospitals under his jurisdiction, and we are sorry to find in every Estimate of the Ministry that there are between 5,000 and 6,000 mental patients as a result of the last war. These men have the sympathy of the Committee and the country, and I hope that my right hon. Friend is taking advantage of every advancement of science in the curing of mental diseases and that the medical officers are kept up-to-date in this branch of medicine, which is one of the most difficult and unsatisfactory. I would


like to see the Minister taking over more hospitals. The Army is very keen about taking over hospitals, and I am not sure that very good use is made of them. I have a hospital in my constituency where people used to undergo treatment for rheumatism and all kinds of ailments. It was taken Over by the Army and a large number of, invalids cleared out in one night. I had occasion to see the Army authorities about it, and I pointed out to a high officer that this place had the best facilities, short of Harrogate, for remedial work. The officer replied, "We did not know it had these facilities. The requisitioning is done by another branch, the 'Q' Branch. It is not our branch." I very much doubt whether that hospital is being used for the purpose for which it has facilities. What a wonderful place it would be for the Ministry of Pensions.
I would like to see my right hon. Friend take charge of all these hospitals. From that point of view I would like to see the status of his Ministry raised. The State has recognised that my right hon. Friend is doing his work well by making him a Privy Councillor, but the Ministry ought to get higher recognition as well so that the Minister could go to the War Cabinet and demand things which are necessary, because his Department is becoming wider in its repercussions and in its contacts with the population.
I want to make one or two references from the medical point of view to the medical boards. My right hon. Friend is not responsible for the boards which examine recruits, for they come under the Ministry of Labour or the Army. The boards, I think, might be a little more careful with regard to the questions they ask about the past illnesses of the recruits. Lots of men are very nervous and often do not do full justice to themselves in this respect, and over and over again men have gone into the Army who had serious disabilities. They were questioned about them, but the questioning was not clearly and freely done and the men were allowed to have their papers passed in such a way that they are made to say they had no disabilities of any kind before joining. Afterwards they fall ill and become affected with disabilities which they really had before they joined. A little more tact in that matter might be helpful. A number of the men on the medical boards are too old.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Gordon Macdonald): The composition of medical boards is not the responsibility of the Minister of Pensions.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I agree, but it has its repercussions on the Minister. I want to submit that if the medical board in the first instance is faulty the effect on the Ministry of Pensions and the men later on is very marked. I only want to touch on the question from that point of view.

The Temporary Chairman: It may be very marked later on, but the Ministry of Pensions has no responsibility, and it can not be discussed on this Vote.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I will leave it at that. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend was not able to make a statement to-day on the question of rehabilitation. I put a Question on the Order Paper to the Minister of Labour, but it was not reached, and I hope that my right hon. Friend may soon be able to make an announcement, because this is an important matter. In hospitals it is very well done, generally in three stages, and then the patients are interviewed by the Ministry of Labour representative. We hope that the House may soon have the scheme of the Minister of Labour.
I will conclude, with a word on appeal tribunals, about which we have had discussions over and over again. My right hon. Friend states that he is in favour of them. The only two objections I ever heard are the difficulty of travelling and the question of medical personnel. If the medical power of this country were correctly distributed the Minister would have no difficulty in securing personnel for the appeal tribunals. There is an immense wastage going on in the medical personnel of this country. In the Army there are 8,000 or 9,000 doctors, and while I appreciate that there may be stages in which they have nothing to do, I still say there is a big waste of medical personnel in the Army services. Then we know that in the big cities doctors have little to do to-day, while in the reception areas a large number of doctors are grossly overworked. If my right hon. Friend can get these appeal tribunals, which I know this Committee would like him to have and which he him self would very much like to have, before the conclusion of hostilities, I hope


that he will take up with the Minister of Health and with the Army authorities the whole question of the redistribution of medical personnel, in order that he may have available a certain number of medical men who have been trained in dealing with diseases and injuries arising from war and from civilian casualties.
In conclusion I wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend upon a most interesting review, which I am sure the Committee have very must appreciated. As I said before, there is much less criticism of the Ministry of Pensions now than ever before in my experience. We must continue along the same path. We must be generous to these men. The rich have been mulcted to such an extent that a little more demanded from them is neither here nor there, and after the termination of hostilities we must not grudge all those who have suffered a full measure of compensation for what they have endured.

Mr. Lipson: One of the most interesting parts of the interesting speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) was his reference to the medical profession. A doctor upon doctors could have been a topic of absorbing interest, and I was hoping that my hon. Friend would, with his very great candour, let himself go; but he only lifted the curtain a little. He did, however, say enough to give us reason to believe that he is not altogether satisfied with some of the decisions which are given by the medical advisers to the Ministry of Pensions. Speaking as a layman, I can understand the decisions of doctors when they agree, but I am in a quandary when they disagree; and when I find, as in some of the cases which I have had to bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend, that the local doctor who knows the man's medical history- well has expressed his opinion as to the liability of the State for the man's injuries and the medical advisers of the Ministry, who do not know him anything like so well, express a different opinion, I am somewhat concerned.
If some of us have had on occasions to tilt at the Ministry of Pensions, I think that all hon. Members will recognise the very humane way in which the present Minister is carrying out his very responsible duties. I do not think that he has made a claim that he could

not justify and with which we would not agree in saying that he is open to all appeals that are made to him, that he does stretch the Regulations as far as they will go, and that he is always pre pared to be convinced that it is necessary for further action to be taken by the States and to seek powers to that end. I say without hesitation that the pensioners of this country have a very sincere and practical friend in the present Minister of Pensions. We are glad that in the frequent changes in the Government he has been able to retain his present office, and from all parts of the House comes the wish that he may long continue in it.
The Minister told us one thing which I regarded as very moving, and that is that some of the pensioners of the last war have voluntarily surrendered their pensions and that others have lent the money to the State for the duration of the war, without interest. All honour to them for having done so. A great many pensioners are not in a financial position which would allow them to do that, but their patriotism and desire to serve are none the less great because they cannot put it into practice in that particular form. The action of those pensioners is all the more creditable because, of all people in this country, they must feel the sadness of the present world tragedy. They were the victims of the last war. They made great sacrifices to give us victory, but unfortunately they have seen that victory thrown away, no proper peace established and the world at war again; and yet in spite of that they are prepared to make further sacrifices.
I would ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that a large number of these pensioners are to-day carrying a well-nigh impossible burden, because they, alone almost of all people in comparable conditions, have not had any increase in their pensions as a result of the increased cost of living. According to the theory which is trotted out from time to time about the index figure a case can be made out why they should not have an increase, but I do not think anyone who regards the matter from a practical point of view would agree. Everybody knows that, in point of fact, the pound to-day is not worth more than 15s., and the effect of that falls heavily on those victims of the last war who are in receipt of pensions.
I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to the question of granting some bonus addition to these pensioners to meet the increased cost of living. It is no good saying that the cost of living has not gone up to the 1919 figure. We know that it has gone up 29 points since the outbreak of the war, and that that argument has been accepted for a very great increase in wages to other members of the community, and it is very hard that the victims of the last war should be almost the only class of persons who have not had assistance in this way. If my right hon. Friend could now see his way to remedy this position I am sure that he would carry public opinion with him.
We were all very pleased that on 3rd July my right hon. Friend was able to announce what we regarded as a very great improvement on the existing procedure under the Royal Warrant, so that when a man has been passed into the army as A.1 and afterwards has to be discharged on account of some disability the State will then—as I assumed—accept responsibility to pay him a pension. I have had my attention drawn this week to a very clear case where, apparently, the intentions of the Minister, as I under stood them—I think I was not alone in understanding them in that way—have not been carried out. I have sent the case to the Minister, but perhaps it has not yet reached him. I feel it is right that attention should be drawn publicly to this matter at the earliest possible moment, because one sometimes gets the impression that, although a Minister has announced in this House that a certain policy will be pursued, the practice actually followed takes a long time to catch up with the announcement. In the meantime, hardship is caused, and the public are very much concerned.
The case to which I refer is that of a man who joined the Territorials a year before the outbreak of war. He was then passed A.1. He was called up on 1st September, 1939, and passed A.1 again. After that, he had two further medical examinations, one of them a strict examination, when he applied for a temporary commission. Again, he was passed A.1. On all four occasions he was passed A.1 by the medical board. In May, 1941, after having served for nearly two years, he was discharged from

the Army as suffering from heart trouble. He applied for a pension, and was informed, on 18th July, 15 days after the announcement made by the Minister of the important change which has been mentioned to-day—and that fact is the reason why I am raising the point—that his disability, the usual phrase, was neither caused nor aggravated by military service and that he is to receive no pension. If that decision is to stand, those of us who ask what effective change was made by the statement on 3rd July are very much to the point. I hope, now that the Minister's attention has been called to this case, that he will agree that it comes definitely within the undertaking which he has given. I have given the Committee only one instance, but I have others, in which some blunder has been made in the Ministry, which has not carried out the Minister's intentions. I hope that the man concerned will be given a pension.
One more matter to which I should like to refer is the allowance of £7 10s. made as funeral expenses to the relatives of any body killed as a result of enemy action. I am glad that the Minister was able to say that local authorities can meet the expenses of a funeral, decently and properly carried out, for the sum of £7 10s., and I hope that those who can ill afford such payments, and who may spend much more than £7 10s. upon a funeral, will now realise that this is a reasonable amount to pay for a funeral. Under takers who have been in the habit of charging very much more should see that their charges are brought somewhere near that figure. It has been suggested that the figure of £7 10s. was arrived at be cause local authorities were able to make more favourable terms than could be made by a private individual. I would like the Minister to consider whether he can suggest to local authorities that their contracts with undertakers should provide that the charge for a funeral should be £7 10s. whether the order is given by the local authority or by the relatives of who ever is to be buried. It may be that the relatives would prefer, for one reason or another, to make their own arrangements. It is important to make widely known the information that the cost of a decent funeral should not be more than £7 10s., and that there is, apparently, no justification for a higher charge.
I join with others in thanking the Minister for his very informative and sympathetic speech, which showed great understanding of the responsibilities of his office. These have grown, and will continue to grow, but the Minister has shown his determination to carry out the intentions of everybody in this country in honouring the debt we owe to these people.

Mr. Dobbie: I am sure everyone will agree with the Minister in regard to the debt of the nation to the pensioners. I hope that the Ministry, the House of Commons and the country will remember, however, that sympathy is not enough. It is not enough to be generous; we have to be just. Probably I shall be the first hon. Member to strike a rather discordant note in this Debate, because there is not a feeling in the country that everything is going well in regard to the pensioners. The Minister has told us that we have close upon 818,000 pensioners from the last war, and of the patriotic action of more than 400, who have given up their pensions. I feel as well disposed towards those 400 as anybody does in the country, but I want to know how well we are meeting our obligations to the remainder who are not in a position to give up their pensions and who are living in poor circumstances. If they are unable to work, they have had no training to fit them to do something in industry. We must congratulate the Ministry on its promise to institute a training scheme to equip pensioners to earn a livelihood. Nothing is more soul-destroying for men than to feel that they are making no contribution to the work and life of the nation. One wonders how far we are carrying out our obligations to these hundreds of thousands of men, and it would be good if the Minister could tell us what steps he proposes to take to demonstrate that we realise we have a debt of gratitude to them.
As has been said by a previous speaker, these men are probably the only set of people in the country receiving no war advance, although they still have to fulfil their obligations in the same way as other people. I hope that the Minister will say something definite in his reply about his intentions to increase the amount received by these pensioners. Let us not allow them to go away feeling that they are the forgotten men of the nation. Let us

demonstrate that we still remember them. The more we demonstrate that we neglect them, the more dissatisfied they will be come. This dissatisfaction exists in the ranks of the Army and in the homes of the people at the way in which pensions are being dealt with at the moment. It is just as well to tell this to the Minister. It is no use making speeches eulogising the Minister when we know that there is deep feeling, and in many cases resentment, in the country.
Most speakers have said something about men who were passed A.1 on joining up. The position of such men is a crying scandal. I know the Minister would agree that it is not enough to produce hypothetical cases and to speak in general terms, and so I have one or two instances here. There is the case of a man who was passed A.1 and who passed all the medical examinations that were necessary. He went to France and played his part there, but the experiences he had in France were such that they rather unsettled his mind. Eventually he committed suicide in this country. That means that his widow is refused a pension. His death was undoubtedly due to his experiences in the Army. The inquest was held this morning, and the witnesses were united in paying a tribute to the sterling character of the man and ex pressed their regret at his loss. The Minister of Pensions says that the Ministry is advised:
That in the circumstances in which your husband met his death, his death cannot be regarded as rendering you eligible for a pension under the Royal Warrant, and the Minister regrets he is therefore unable to make any award".
Hon. Members will understand how that woman feels, and how the people who live round about feel, about this case, which has had some publicity. They will understand why it is that these people think there is something wrong with the Ministry of Pensions or with the Government, when they take a man from his home in the full bloom of his life, make use of him in the work of the war, his mind is destroyed, death comes to him, and no pension is given to the widow.
I will quote another case. This is the case of a young man who joined the Navy and who, again, met all the obligations from the physical standpoint. I hope the previous case I have mentioned


is one which the Minister will look at again, and I hope that this one will also be looked into once more. I do not know whether these cases will be re viewed automatically; perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us when he replies whether that will be so or whether fresh application will have to be made. This young man was in the Navy for four or five years and was discharged. He say she was invalided out on account of "psychopathic personality," what ever that means; I know it is some kind of mental trouble. Medical men say he will never be able to work again, but the Government say he is not a fit subject for a pension because this disability was not developed in the ordinary course of his work as a seaman. The family medical history is a good one, and his family doctor gives his medical history as a good one, but still the Government say he is not entitled to a pension, and he is thrown on to the resources of his parents. These claims are causing great dissatisfaction in the areas around where the people live, and I hope cases like these will be reviewed, and reviewed in the generous manner which the Minister has talked about to-day. I will believe something about this generosity when I see it put into operation; I have never seen it yet.
Then we come to the position of the means test. We have been told that the means test is now abolished, and many people believe that, but slowly and surely they are becoming disillusioned. The people who believe that the means test was abolished, or was going to be abolished, some months ago are now much fewer than they were. I have here the case of two lads in the Army, both of whom, along with their widowed mother, were desirous of playing their part in the struggle for the nation's life. One of the boys was killed, and the widow received a pension of 7s. 6d. a week. The other boy, desirous of becoming an efficient soldier, did his best and was promoted, which increased his pay by 3s. 6d. a week. That money was automatically put to his allotment to his mother, on which the Ministry of Pensions reviewed the case and applied the means test, stopping the whole of her 7s. 6d. pension. The reward of that widow for the loss of her son, and the reward of the other boy for his assiduous attention to his job as a soldier, is that

the family were fined 4s. a week. The Minister says:
Consideration has been given to your claim and a pension at the rate of 7a. 6d. per week has been awarded in your favour. In view of the dependant's allowance granted in respect of your son Thomas, the governing conditions can no longer be regarded as fulfilled and it is regretted, therefore, that further payment cannot be offered.
These are some of the things which can be said in regard to the unsatisfactory side of the application of pensions to soldiers' dependants. We have to remember that to-day the soldier is an artisan, the worst paid artisan in the country, because the soldier of to-day, if he is an infantryman, has to be well up in field training and to understand the mechanism of his rifle or tommy-gun, or whatever kind of new rifle or gun comes into existence, and if he is an artilleryman, he has to understand the mechanism of the big guns. No matter what branch of the Armed Forces he is in, he is not an unskilled labourer but an artisan, and has to make himself efficient. So we have to admit that, to begin with, they are under paid. That is a claim that can be put forward for every private in the Armed Forces, and the overwhelming majority are in the rank and file and are not officers or non-commissioned officers. Underpaid as they are, it is bad enough for them to have to make that sacrifice, but it is doubly hard when in addition they feel that their widows or dependants will also have to make sacrifices, and will not get the attention from the pensions stand point to which they are entitled.
I will turn now to the war grants, and I would have preferred that the Parliamentary Secretary had spoken before I made any reference to it, because I hope he will boldly tell us that they are going to abolish the application of the means test to soldiers' dependants who may make application for a war service grant. I hope he will be able to tell us that in the review which the Minister is to make he will act in the generous way he has talked about. The last time I spoke here about pensions the Minister challenged the accuracy of my figures, although they were figures given out by his own officers. I will now take the precaution of repeating them. These are the figures for last week from his own Department, and I will read them out so that he can deny them again if he likes. Out of 427,000 appli-


cations for war service grants, 134,000 have been rejected by the application of the means test, or about one-third. I hope the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that if they are still going to apply the means test, they will apply it in a more generous manner than in the past. We find that when a young soldier makes an allotment to his mother, who in turn makes application for and receives a grant, if that youth makes himself an efficient soldier and receives proficiency pay, the money is allocated to his mother and the War Grants Committee apply the means test in order to knock off, if not the whole of the grant, at least the 3s. 6d.
One might have seen something, per haps, of the generous nature of the treatment here. I cannot get away from this talking about generous treatment. I have to dissociate myself from anyone who has spoken before me and has talked about generous treatment to soldiers' dependants in this country. If only the Minister had said, "We will at least allow you to take half of this money" to that young soldier, who gets none of the proficiency pay, because it is allocated to his dependants, and the War Grants Committee take it back. These are the things about which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary, when he speaks, will be able to say some thing clearly and definitely.
Then again, when the position is being reviewed, will these 134,000 cases be reviewed automatically or will they have to make fresh application? Would the Parliamentary Secretary inform us whether, in cases where an application is rejected, the Ministry of Pensions would be good enough to inform the applicant that they have a right of appeal? When an application is made it is dealt with, in the first instance, by the staff. I say no word of recrimination about them and no word against the efficiency with which they do their job. But when there are thousands of cases which are rejected by the staff, and the applicants do not know they have the right of appeal, I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would say, when he speaks, whether, in future, when a case has been rejected, the applicant will be informed, at least, that he has a right of appeal to the Committee, or to the Minister. I think it is a fair and a reasonable thing to ask. We have endeavoured to get this operated, but for

some reason or other the Minister has not yet been able to see his way to agree to that very elementary suggestion.
There is just one other thing I want to mention, and that is the question of the civilians scheme. The Minister has promised a good deal, and I will not challenge any of these promises. I only hope that they will come into some being. We have been promised that there is to be some consideration given to the method of dealing with pensions under the civilians scheme. I hope that promise will be implemented. There is a good deal of dissatisfaction, although the Minister described it as sheer nonsense when I raised the question of a man and wife who had been voluntary A.R.P. workers. The man eventually became a full-time A.R.P. worker. His wife, in spite of the wretched treatment she has received, is still a voluntary A.R.P. worker in the constituency which I represent. From that man's house to his post took him a quarter of an hour. I have measured the route myself. He left his house at 9.45 p.m. and was within 50 yards of his post, where he was going to sign on duty, and he was killed by an A.R.P. vehicle. His widow has been refused a pension. When I talked here about indignation in the constituency the Minister said it was sheer nonsense and that there was no indignation. I can assure him that the A.R.P. workers in the constituency which I represent feel very sore and indignant.
It is of no use to say to us that this scheme was drawn up in conjunction with the Trades Union Congress and that the Workmen's Compensation Act has been taken as a basis. It is no excuse to say to us that they all adopt all the mean and wretched things, and all the errors, of the Workmen's Compensation Act. They ought to have been able to see the errors and the difficulties of that Act, and it is no excuse to the people of the country, and is certainly an insult to the widow to be told that her husband had not signed on for duty. He was killed on the road on his way to duty, within 50 yards of his post, killed by an A.R.P vehicle, and his widow is refused compensation because he had not signed on the dotted line. I hope that, in the review of the situation, the Minister will pay close attention to cases like that, and that the review, when it is made, will be of such a character that it will cover men going


to, and returning from, their work. I have not much more to say, but I hope that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will review these matters if we are to live up to the reputation we give ourselves. I felt ashamed when I heard talk in this Debate of a generous gesture. How can we talk about a generous gesture to widows who have given every thing in, their lives—husband, sons, everything dearest and best to them in life? I hope that the Minister and the Ministry will rise to greater heights than ever they have done in the past.

Major Leighton: I am very glad to have heard the Minister of Pensions say that he was, in conjunction with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour, to undertake the re-training of disabled men. I feel that that is a most important question, and a very difficult one. First of all, I feel that, apart from any actual training, the first thing is to train the men's minds to the future. Some organisation should be set up in order that, while a man is still in hospital, his mind and his thoughts should be turned to the future. How can this be done? It might be done by setting up a system by which visitors, with a full knowledge of all the different schemes, could go round and discuss the question with the disabled men while they are still in hospital. Then, again, the people who have most influence over these men are the nursing staff. You could get any pamphlets or any thought-out schemes circulated to the hospitals, not only to the Ministry of Pensions hospitals, but to all the hospitals that are looking after disabled soldiers and sailors. I feel that that is the first thing to be done. As regards training, there are in existence several voluntary factories and workshops which have already been set up after the last war, and which employ entirely disabled men, for instance, the Lord Roberts' Workshops. Incidentally, I happen to be chairman of one board which looks after a small factory that employs entirely disabled men. A list of such organisations could be very easily got out and circulated, with details of what they are doing, and to what extent the men could be employed in them.
It must be realised that occasionally men have had to give up after being

trained, because they were unable to go on with the work. It is most important that they should not be trained until they have been certified as being medically fit. If the Government set up these schemes, not all the men who go to the training centres will be successful. A careful watch should be kept, to see whether they are likely to be successful after their training. If they are not likely to succeed at a particular kind of work, some other sort of training should be given. After the last war, a great many men were trained for a trade and did not find employment in that trade afterwards. I would like to know what arrangements will be made for employers to visit these centres to pick out men. It is no good training a man for a job unless he is to get employment after wards. I want the Ministry, first, to get the men for training, if it is possible; secondly, to see that the training is successful; and, thirdly, to get employers interested in the men after they have been trained. There is one other point. I do not know whether it comes under the Ministry of Pensions. Would the Government be prepared to assist any of these existing organisations for employing disabled men in extending their premises, in order to employ more men after the war?

Mr. Mander: I thank the Minister for the admirable statement he has made. As one who has only recently joined the Central Advisory Committee, I may say that, as far as I am in a position to judge, he carries out in the administration of his office what he has been telling us to-day. He is not concerned with a narrow Treasury view, saving every penny that can be saved, but with giving the benefit of the doubt to the pensioner, I have a great deal of sympathy with the suggestion that the status of the Ministry should be raised in view of the enormous extension of its duties as a result of the nature of this war and the suffering of civilians in this country. The Ministry has contact with persons in every part of the country. Citizens ought to find that such contact is the very best and the most enlightened that we can produce. I know that the present staff are admirably carrying out their duties, but if that increased status can be given to the Minister and to all associated with him in their task it will be to the benefit of the State.
I want to call attention to one or two questions to which reference has been


already made. In this war, as distinct from the last, Great Britain is included in the battlefield, and anything which was granted to soldiers in France in the last war ought to be granted to those soldiers serving in this country at present. Of course, I except any case where a man's own serious neglect is responsible. There are such cases, however, as when a man is travelling to and from his meals outside his military camp; when a man is on leave and is attending a concert, a cinema or something of that sort; when he is going to quarters or billets on short leave; and when he is walking, cycling, or travelling in a car in his spare time. It is said that he is then in the same position as a civilian. That is not so. A soldier in uniform when on leave is always subject to discipline. He is not his own master. In an emergency he is likely to be called upon to come to the service of the State, and he may be punished for anything he docs contrary to military standards. It seems to me that if a man is on leave, in uniform, and anything happens to him he ought to be treated as if he were on active service with his military unit.
The Minister recently made a very acceptable concession about persons who have suffered aggravation of their illness. That is very satisfactory as far as it goes, but it relates only to men in the Regular Army, who are medically examined and found to be A.1. There are frequent cases of Territorials and Reservists—and of Home Guards, too, although I quite understand that in the Home Guard there has been no medical examination and that, therefore, the same conditions do not quite apply. In the case of Reservists and Territorials, if the State in calling them up did not give them a medical examination that is the fault of the State. It ought to be assumed that it is the duty of the State when taking a man for ser vice to carry out a proper medical examination. If his condition has deteriorated in any way as a result of service, a man ought to receive a pension. A great many of the troubles of soldiers arise in the shape of duodenal ulcers. A man may be perfectly fit and well when living his own life and having the food that suits him best, but under military conditions he has to eat not what he wants but much bulkier and more solid food, which he finds that his system is not able to stand. Such cases do not receive the sympathy they deserve.
Then there are cases of arthritis, caused by sleeping in damp beds. Every consideration ought to be given to a soldier who suffers from such a cause. Reference was made by the Minister to the question of rehabilitation, and I was glad to hear him say that it was of enormous importance. It is not enough to treat a man's body; his mind is just as important, and any steps the Minister can take to see that a man is not only made physically fit but is made mentally fit for the future will add to the happiness and contentment of the pensioners to a very marked degree. I hope the Minister will do all he can to hurry for ward the arrangements he is making.
I would like to conclude with a reference to appeal tribunals. I know that the principle of these appeal tribunals has been accepted, but I think some thing might be done in the matter at once, without waiting for the end of the war. It is not sufficient to take a man into the Army and let him serve and be wounded, and then say, "You have played your part in the war, but we can not carry out our part because we have not sufficient staff to see that every possible facility for appeal is afforded to you." We ought to carry out our part of the bargain and give these men all possible facilities to obtain justice. We ought to provide the necessary personnel for the appeal tribunals now, before the war comes to an end. I would also like to give support to the suggestion that the meetings of the Advisory Committee, of which I, admittedly, have not been a member for very long, might be held at regular intervals. It is true the Minister may say he has not much material to bring before the Committee, but it is possible that the members of the Committee themselves might have proposals they would like to bring before him. Perhaps on a reciprocal basis of that kind the Minister might find it convenient to meet the Committee oftener—a Commit tee which appreciates to the full the humane and sympthetic way in which he is carrying out his duties and which is determined to give him the best help it can in his widespread task.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Paling): I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I spoke now, with particular reference to the War Service


Grants Committee. I know other Members want to speak, and I will be as brief as possible. Since December, 1939, my right hon. Friend has been responsible for granting special allowances in cases of serious hardship caused by the calling-up of men for war service. During the last financial year over £3,644,000 has been spent in this way, bringing the total up to 31st March, 1941, to well over £4,000,000. The estimated cost for the year ending 31st March next is £5,750,000. It is clear that many men summoned for service must have commitments, not only by way of supporting their families, but also by way of business and the ordinary obligations of civil life. With certain limits these obligations are taken into account, so that a man's return to civil conditions is facilitated.
There is a representative committee of 23 members, which includes eight Members of this House drawn from all parties, and which advises my right hon. Friend regarding claims, of which about 430,000 have already been received. Further claims are coming in at the rate of between 500 and 600 a day. I have every reason to believe, from the letters I receive, that the help we are able to give reassures a man that his service has not materially injured the conditions of his family at home. Since the discussions of last year the scheme has been ex tended. It was introduced for the benefit of members of the Armed Forces of the Crown and until June, 1941, was restricted to them. But as from 1st June this year eligibility under the scheme has been conceded to Civil Defence personnel en rolled in the civil services under the National Service Act, 1941. Broadly speaking, they include the Auxiliary Fire Service, the Police War Reserve and First-Aid Parties, but only in so far as they have been definitely conscripted under the 1941 Act. They also include men transferred on or at 1st June to the employment of a county war agricultural executive committee. Civil Defence personnel can obtain a form of application from the local office of the Assistance Board, and men transferred to agriculture can get the appropriate form from the county war agricultural executive committee.
Now I come to the awards which have been made and issued. My hon. Friend

the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie) made some remarks about the numbers of awards made and rejections, and I will give the Committee the figures. The total claims received up to date number 428,688, plus 3,490' in hand. Of these, 292,787 have received awards, and 135,249 claims have been rejected. That means that 68 per cent. of the claims have been granted awards. The number 135,249 seems large, but, roughly speaking, it is rather less than one-third. Many of these claims have been sent in without the least hope of succeeding. Men are handed these forms and say, "Here is a possibility of getting something." They do not know whether they will or whether they will not, but they think they might, and they send in their claims. We make no complaint about that; they have a perfect right to do so, but in a good many cases no real claim exists, and because of that there is rejection. The awards now in being number 216,953.
Now I come to another point, which was raised last year, with regard to the average amount granted. In last year's Debate my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. E. Dunn), after listening to my right hon. Friend and making a calculation in the light of the information he gathered, made the statement that the average weekly award was about 3s. Well, I con fess that I was rather alarmed at that, but later in the Debate my right hon. Friend, in reply, stated that the average weekly award was 7s. 8d. An analysis has been made for the last ten weeks in order to see what was the average award, and it works out at 10s. 6d. a week. Therefore, it is going up. The hon. Member for Rotherham said that perhaps we are not always as generous as my right hon. Friend indicated in his speech, but I submit that an average award of 10s. 6d. is no mean contribution towards the welfare of the families of these soldiers, sailors and airmen, and that it represents a fairly big increase in the family income. It may interest hon. members to have a short statement about the analysis of the awards. Nearly 80 per cent. of the awards were for sums between 5s. and 20s. a week. Out of a total of 108,500 cases, in the last six months, 42,000 were for 5s. and over; 28,000 were for 10s. and over, and 11,000 for 15s. and over.
There have been some complaints about the difficulty of obtaining forms. The position is that men called up for medical examination with a view to enlistment can obtain the form at the examination centre, men already serving can obtain the form, through their commanding officers, from the regimental pay master, and wives and dependants of men serving overseas who made no claim before departure can initiate an application and can obtain the form of application on sending a postcard to the local offices of the Assistance Board. There have been requests from time to time for this form to be stocked at Post Offices and the offices of various non-official bodies, such as the British Legion and the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Families Association. This request has been resisted, because the Post Offices could stock the forms only at head offices in the towns, and those are the localities where the forms are readily available. Moreover, it is necessary to exercise an effective control on the supply of forms so as to prevent duplicate and triplicate applications which give rise to difficulty and unnecessary work. There have been cases in which as many as five separate applications have been made. The machinery for the investigation of and decision on claims covers three Departments, and prompt decisions are dependent upon the completed forms of application entering the machine in the right way.
One of the things which I did when I took over this office was to send for one of the forms and look at it carefully. I know that ordinary men and women do not like official forms, of which they are inclined to be a little bit afraid, and I frankly admit that some of the forms sent out in connection with various things rather frighten me on occasion. Some times they are highly technical and complicated, and difficult to fill in. But this form is a fairly simple one. There are five main questions on it, divided into sub-heads, and I think it would be difficult to issue a form which was much simpler but at the same time gave us the information we want. I think it is possible for any ordinary man or woman who gets the form and wishes to make an application to fill it in correctly, and, by so doing, to get it through the machine as quickly as possible and, if an award

is made, to be notified within a very few days.

Sir Joseph Nall: What is the official number of the form which the hon. Gentleman has in his hand? It looks smaller and simpler than some I have seen.

Mr. Paling: It has printed on it "M.S.A.C. 21. W.S.G." With regard to delays in deciding cases, much has been heard about this matter in the past, but the complaints have now largely sub sided. For many weeks past the number of undecided cases in the hands of the Ministry has been smaller than the intake of new cases. Therefore, it is manifest that no complaint of widespread and protracted delay can be sustained. The rules for the assessment of grants have been considerably simplified, and at the present time simple arithmetical calculations are all that is needed for the settlement of 95 per cent. of the claims. The remaining 5 per cent. consist of difficult and often tangled cases in which the essential facts are obtainable only after protracted inquiry, and cases of this type may, through no fault of the Ministry, remain undecided for several weeks. Let me give the Committee a typical example of what we call the tangled cases. Before joining the Armed Forces, the man ran a one-man business. He kept no books, all that he took being pocketed and all liabilities in connection with the business being paid direct from his pocket. When he joined the Armed Forces, his wife carried on the business in the same way and managed it on the same lines as her husband. The family budget was mixed up with the business. It does not need much imagination to see that it is often very difficult to find out what is the real income of the family in such cases.

Sir J. Nall: Why not take the Income Tax assessment?

Mr. Paling: A good many of these people, and indeed the bulk of them, I think, do not pay Income Tax. War ser vice grants are issued for the purpose of alleviating serious hardship in cases where financial sacrifice is necessarily made when a man joins the Armed Forces. This means that the war service grants are based on the difference between the pre-service and the in-service emoluments.
Every increase in the in-service emoluments diminishes the difference and consequently reduces the serious hardship; and it follows that a grant based on the serious hardship has to be adjusted accordingly. The hon. Member for Rotherham mentioned the case of proficiency payments. They have to be taken into consideration. Almost every serving soldier gets proficiency pay almost automatically after six months, and it is taken into account. If a grant has been made in such a case, the 3s. 6d. increase in the man's income is taken into account and is deducted. In the case of the ordinary soldier who has not got a war service grant, the 3s. 6d. goes to his wife, and the Committee thinks that in those circumstances it is entitled to take into account the whole of the 3s. 6d. If a man is promoted to higher rank, the whole of the amount does not necessarily have to be taken into account and is not necessarily deducted; in those cases, generally only a part of it is taken into account. The Department maintains a close liaison with the welfare authorities and full information about policy and procedure is supplied to these officers, who are often approached by serving members of the Forces about difficulties of all kinds affecting their homes. The welfare officers do everything in their power to help serving members of the Forces, and the War Service Grants Administration endeavours to further their interests in all matters with which it is concerned.
I come now to the Determination of Needs Act. The hon. Member for Rother ham said that most people are of the opinion that the means test has been abolished. Most of us know that it has not disappeared altogether, and that it does exist to some extent even now. It exists to some extent so far as my Department is concerned. The principle embodied in the Determination of Needs Act is followed in the assessment of war service grants, and the practice of the Ministry in this connection is thus brought into line with that followed in the Service Departments in fixing family and dependants' allowances. Let me give a typical case. It is a case of a dependent mother whose son is serving in the Forces. Her daughter is living at home and is earning 40s. a week. Her daughter's contribution to the household was previously taken as 32s. a week, resulting in a refusal of grant under the War Service Grants

Scheme, but the daughter's contribution is now taken as 5s. a week, making it possible to authorise a grant.
War service grants have been assessed on the civilian earnings a man had to give up in order to join the Forces. A considerable rise in wages has taken place since September, 1939, and, as a consequence, men who joined up at a later stage have been assessed on a more favourable basis than those who joined up earlier. A review of past awards is therefore being undertaken with the object of re-assessing them on a wage basis approximate to the level appertaining in the men's various avocations at the pre sent date. In other words, those people who were assessed at the time they entered the Services on the lower wage, which, if they had remained in their civil employment would have subsequently been increased, will have their cases re viewed on the basis of the higher rate, and that should be to their benefit,

Mr. Mathers: Is that applied in the case of a man who joined the Forces when his apprenticeship was nearing completion, and who would have soon reached adult status? Will he be put on an adult status for the purposes of this review?

Mr. Paling: Yes, I take it that that is so. The question of what a man would be earning when his apprenticeship is finished is also taken into account. While under present conditions a number of cases have been dealt on too low a basis, on the other hand a large number of women to whom grants have been awarded have been absorbed in industry, and the wages they are now receiving puts them outside the scope of the scheme of war service grants. On the recommendation of the Advisory Committee—and there are about 148,000 of these cases—a review is being undertaken. It is not necessary for grantees to make representation in these cases. The hon. Member for Rotherham asked whether rejected cases would be dealt with by us, or whether they would have to apply afresh. I understand they will be expected to make a fresh application. All the cases now in issue will be dealt with automatically, except those cases of rejection where people will be expected to make fresh applications.


Now I come to commitments of members of the Forces. Where there is serious hardship it is the practice in a good many cases to compare the financial resources of the family pre-service and in-service after the commitments or standard charges, such as rent, hire purchase, etc., have been met. Any grant which is made is, therefore, based on the disparity between the pre-service and in-service amounts. If the grant is made, the family is notified of the position, and failure to meet the commitments might lead to the cancellation of the grant. There have been frequent representations that rent and mortgage interest have been allowed to fall into arrears. The com plaints about rent have emanated very largely from local authorities with large housing estates. They urge that there should be a specific rent allowance so that in each case they could demand the amount. If such a demand was conceded, it would be difficult to refuse specific allowances in respect of other standing charges. There would be no reason why furniture instead of rent should not receive preferential treatment. Alternatively the demand has been made that the grants on account of rent should be paid direct. Actually no part of the grant is made in respect of rent. The grant is made in respect of serious hardship remaining after the rent and other charges have been met. The Ministry is prepared in certain cases to bring pressure to bear and to remind households of the conditions under which their grants have been issued. This action should not be taken in the interest of the creditors, but in the interests of the men serving in the Forces who might find when they returned to civil life that they were faced with a heavy accumulation of debt.
Now I come to another feature—that of officer cases. Out of 428,000 applications for war service grants, only 1,450 have been in respect of officers and nurses. This appears to us to be a very small figure indeed. We do not know why this is so, and we are of the opinion that if this scheme were fully understood and its benefit realised, a larger number of officers might apply.

Sir J. Nall: If a pension is granted in the case of a man serving in the ranks, is his grant reviewed when he gets a commission?

Mr. Paling: In any case where the income of a man increases that extra in come is always taken into consideration, from whatever source the increase may have come. There is some suspicion that the benefits of the scheme are either not known to the officers generally or are not appreciated by them. But there is no reason why they should not apply. Doubtless the scheme of war service grants is widely known, but we are considering further publicity steps. Publicity includes circulars issued by the Ministry of Labour to men when called up for medical examination and notices posted up in post offices. Then there are the Minister's broadcasts and the notices which have appeared in the Press. All the various war pension committees, voluntary organisations and associations have been kept fully informed.
Nevertheless, it may be that the scheme is still not generally known, and, because it should be known by all, we are considering further ways and means of giving it publicity. It is not, as I heard some one indicate some time ago, that we are particularly anxious to give State money away to people who do not require it, but that we are afraid there may be a considerable number of men still in the Ser vices who have no knowledge of the scheme, and who could be helped and should be helped by reason of their commitments. As everyone knows, it was intended when these men went into the Services that they should not be worried by the fact that their wives, children and dependants had insufficient to live on or were suffering serious hardship. It was recognised that it did not make for an efficient soldier if he was worried by that kind of thing. If there are any to-day who are suffering, it is up to us to see that enough publicity is given to this scheme so that they may know they can receive some help if their circumstances require it. A good many cases of complaint come to the Ministry, and I can say, like my right hon. Friend, that every case receives full consideration. We go through it almost with a microscope. The hon. Member for Rotherham said he did not ask for sympathy, but for justice. We try to be just and sympathetic. We know that the scheme is a great help to the wives, children and dependants of members of the Fighting Forces.

Captain Sir Ian Fraser: I think the statement in the concluding part of the hon. Gentleman's speech is really a testimonial to the Ministry of Pensions which we should note. He pointed out that there are certain soldiers, officers and others, who may not have taken advantage of this scheme, which he has outlined so interestingly, and he said, "We want them to know." I only wish to call attention to it as an example of the spirit which the country, through the Government and the Minister of Pensions, is showing towards the serving soldier, and: towards disabled people. They want them to know what they can have. That is a right attitude and one which I feel we should commend.
I want to make one or two criticisms which I hope will be found constructive. I have privately represented to the Minister, and he has been good enough to put the matter to his Advisory Committee, that the biggest question of principle to which he ought to direct his thoughts is that of making provision for the wives and children of young soldiers and others who, having been disabled in the service of the country, have not yet been thought of in any pension scheme. The State has taken up the attitude that it can only be responsible for wives and children who were dependent upon the soldier at the time that he was disabled. Since most of our serving people are youngsters, they are not married. Their married life and the coming of children comes perhaps five years later. The system has Been that of providing the same flat-rate pension for these men whether they are married or single. It may be argued that the rates of pension are adequate or inadequate, but if they are adequate for a single man, they clearly cannot be adequate for a man with a wife and family. That is a most important matter of principle to which my right hon. Friend ought to devote his attention. His Advisory Committee have taken the view that some increase in the existing rate is even more important, and the Minister takes that view himself. I cannot feel really that he has given this the thought which a statesman ought to give to it. My feeling is that he has been rather a politician seeking to find out what will please the majority than a statesman seeking to find out what is best for the people in the long run. If you ask the ordinary single soldier whether he wants

a rise in his pension, of course, he will say "Yes." If you say, "Would you not rather have something for your wife and children when you are married?" he will say, "I want that as well." But he will not say that that is what he prefers, because he cannot think for himself, especially when his pension is not adequate. It is up to older men who have youngsters, and who have the experience of caring for disabled men, to think for them. I hope the Committee will press the Minister to consider the question of wives' and children's allowances. It is not only right for the men, it is right for the country.
As both he and the Advisory Committee have taken the view that a rise in the pension must precede consideration of this matter, let me adduce one or two arguments why that rise should be made now. The pension paid to the totally disabled soldier from the last war is 40s. a week. I will stick to the totally disabled man and the single flat rate without any complications because, the simpler we make it, the easier it will be for me to present the argument and for others to follow it. The totally disabled man in the last war got 40s. His equivalent in this war gets 34s. 2d.; the difference is very considerable. The last war pension was established in 1919 and was based upon a cost-of-living figure of 215, so that 215 points in the cost of living represents 40s. in money. The cost-of-living figure to day is 198½ In recent weeks it has been up to 200, but it has averaged 198½ over the past six months. A simple arithmetical sum will show that as 215 is to 40s., so is 198 to 36s. 11d. But the present pension is not 36s. 11d. but 34s. 2d. On the face of it there is a discrepancy. But I want to appeal not merely to arithmetic but to pledges which have been made. The late Mr. Chamberlain in September, 1939, justifying this rate of 32s. 6d., said that if the cost of living rose to a material extent, the pension could be raised. When the cost of living rose some points the Minister raised the pension from 32s. 6d. to 34s. 2d. A further rise is now due, both having regard to what was said and having regard to arithmetic.
But there is another reason of administration and expediency which must cause the Minister to consider raising the pension very soon. When the new pensioner reaches 40s. his pension will be


assimilated to that of the old. When the cost-of-living figure rises to 215 he will have to consider immediately a rise to all pensioners, new and old alike, because he promised to do that when the cost of living rises by 5 per cent., or 11 points over 215. The cost of living has only 16½points to run before it reaches the point at which he has to assimilate the new man's pension to the old. Is he going to jump over night from 34s. 2d. to 40s., or will he not consider whether it would be more equitable to take one stage now and another when the further 15 points are reached? He has to assimilate it at 215 points, otherwise it will be felt that he has broken his pledge, and I am sure that will not be his desire or intention. I submit, therefore, that it is expedient and wise to meet the position which he will shortly have to meet in two stages rather than one, and that the first stage is now due.
It has also been proposed that the pensions of the men of the great war will be raised to meet the increases in the cost of living when the cost of living rises by 11 points above 215. It is when we come to the consideration of that that I want to press again upon the Minister the importance of considering in good time the question of wives and children. A wife is a necessity to a totally disabled man. It is true that there are some who do not marry, but it is much better for the man that he should. A wife is the best person to look after him, to bring him solace and comfort and to make his life seem a normal one. Children are the natural outcome. They ought to be the natural outcome, not only for the happiness of the family, but for the well-being of the country. Any biologist who studies the mortal statistics of the country must realise that we shall soon reach the stage in which the population increase begins to abate, and soon after that we shall reach the stage at which the population begins to decline. We feel that we have a mission in this world, not a mission to conquer, but a mission to continue to be one of the great peoples, and it is not right in any sphere of our national policy that we should ignore the children. I am not pleading for any new principle. The soldier gets his allowances for a wife and children, whether he marries and has children before the war or during the war. The Government gives these allowances because there are so many mouths to feed,

and the reason why the Parliamentary Secretary told us of the added help given by the schemes he was outlining is the same. There ought not to be any distinction when a disabled man finishes his service. We ought to have regard to his liabilities, and one of his essential liabilities is his wife and children. I would ask my right hon. Friend not to spend time inventing reasons why he cannot do this and that, but to think of the human and sociological principles that are involved here.
When the Minister raised the pensions for men he did not raise them for officers, and when he fixed the pensions for officers he fixed the lower of two prevailing rates and reduced the pensions by a larger percentage than in the case of the men. Would he look into that again to see whether he acted fairly? A special pension was fixed by Parliament for blinded officers in respect of the last war. The cut which my right hon. Friend has made in these pensions reduces them by over 40 per cent. All other persons' pensions were reduced by 15 per cent. Will my right hon. Friend look into that? This is a democratic age, and were the officer drawn from a selected class there would be something to be said for taking away his privileges, but to-day the officer is drawn from all classes of the community and everyone has a chance of becoming an officer. Finally, will the Minister think over the difficulty into which he will get about tribunals? If he waits until Parliament presses him inevitably to set them up, he will have such arrears to overtake that he will have much greater difficulty than if he set them up now. Will he, therefore, move on with the matter as soon as possible?

Captain John Dugdale: I want to refer only to the question of pensions for parents. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have assured us that they will give more generous treatment in all matters connected with pensions, but, like the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie), I am somewhat sceptical about this generosity. I hope, but I am not by any means certain yet. The Parliamentary Secretary flourished in his hand a small and rather pretty pink paper and said that that was the form which was to be used by people desiring pensions. I will flourish in my hand a very large ugly white paper. This is the


form which parents are asked to fill in if they apply for pensions. There are between 20 and 30 questions to be answered, and it is difficult for parents to answer them unless they have had a long and arduous education. I would, therefore, ask for simplicity in the questionnaire which is sent out to parents, and that the forms should be available in post offices as well as the pensions offices. I would also like to ask that in the matter of pensions for parents we should dispense, in one respect at any rate, with the prevailing means test. I am not going to dispute the necessity of having a means test generally, but in the last war there were pensions given after investigation of means and also pensions given as of right. That pension was 5s. per week. Apart from any pension given for need, there should also be a pension given as of right. That is the least we can do for parents who have given their sons in the war. I asked a question on this point a few weeks ago and as a result I had letters from all over the country. One mother wrote:
I certainly have no intention of giving them my personal history. I do not intend to fill in a form. Since then I have had no further correspondence. I am getting on in years, but I have still too much English pride and self-respect to allow me to answer personal questions after having given my son's life.
We can respect a woman disliking having to answer these personal questions after she has given her own son's life in the war. There are many widows and other dependants drawing pensions for men who were killed in the last war. To-day dependants of men killed in this war have to live side by side with dependants of men killed in the last war. They see that the latter are getting pensions, and they feel very hard about it. I have letters expressing extreme dissatisfaction at knowing there were people who had been receiving pensions for 20 years since the last war, while they themselves were receiving no pension although they had lost their sons in this war. That is an anomaly which should be inquired into by the Minister. In conclusion, I would read one more letter. It is a letter of a very different character, a very short, simple and moving letter:
The Queen and I offer you our heartfelt sympathy in your great sorrow. We pray that your country's gratitude for a life so nobly

given in its service may bring you some measure of consolation.
I would ask that those words, so nobly expressed by our Sovereign, should be translated into action by this House of Commons.

The Chairman: It was quite out of Order for the hon. and gallant Member to read that letter. It is against the practice of this House for the name of the Sovereign to be brought into our Debates.

Sir W. Womersley: rose—

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Before the Minister replies may I ask your guidance on one point, Sir Dennis? The time allotted for this Debate was four hours and the Government spokes men have occupied, or will have occupied before the end, one and three quarter hours, or nearly half the time. Only seven other hon. Members have had opportunities to speak and I do pro test against this monopoly by the Government.

The Chairman: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. Stewart: Then I make my protest.

Sir W. Womersley: I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I reply now to several of the points which have been brought forward by hon. Members. First, let me say how pleased I am that we have been able to have a pretty full discussion on pension questions, and to know that, in the main, hon. Members are fairly well satisfied with the way in which the Department is doing its work. I take that as a compliment to my staff—not merely to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, but to the staff, particularly those who have to deal from time to time with higher policy. I want to emphasise the point that, what ever the case may have been before, I do know that in these days those who are occupying positions in which they can influence policy are always anxious to help cases that need help.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Captain J. Dugdale) raised the question of parents' pensions, a subject which has been discussed time and time again. It was a moving letter which he read at the conclusion of his remarks. I know that


those letters are appreciated. Possibly the hon. and gallant Member has not gone as deeply into this aspect of the subject as I have. I realised that it was a difficult problem in view of the fact that parents' pensions were given in the last war. It was a flat rate pension of 5s. for a parent who lost a son. That matter was considered very carefully by the Select Committee which considered pensions' administration and pensions' rights generally after the last war. On the evidence produced, it was then realised that that was quite a wrong system to adopt. Really what it amounts to is this: If you are a parent with a son fighting in the war—.we are all in the same position, I have my son fighting—are you going to say that 5s. a week would be any consolation to you for the loss of that son? The better consolation is to think that he has died in the service of his country.
Those pensions of 5s. a week granted in the last war are being paid to people who to-day have to include them in their Income Tax returns and to pay Income Tax on them. They will walk down to the Post Office and draw the 5s. a week although their means are such that they have to pay Income Tax. I realised as soon as I took up this matter that the best thing to do was to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee and assess a parent's pension on the expectation of what the parent would have been likely to receive from that member of the household by way of assistance, and more particularly to deal with the case as one of need, broadly interpreted. That is what we do, and because we are not giving these 5s. pensions to people who do not need them I am in a position to use the money to provide far better pensions for those who do need them.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of the parents receiving the 5s. are not actually in need of it?

Sir W. Womersley: Every one of them, because if they are in need, they have the opportunity of putting in a second claim under which the pension of 5s. can be supplemented, and I take it that anyone who is in need would do so. I know that in my own constituency all who were in need promptly applied for the higher pension, and so one can take it that those

who did not were not in need of the money. In dealing with these cases we must bear in mind that you can only say "The State's responsibility is the responsibility of the boy that has been killed".
What would my hon. and gallant Friend do in a case like this? There was a family consisting of the two parents and their eight boys and one girl. The parents were getting on in years. One boy was killed. Not one of the other seven boys allowed his parents a single penny piece, although one of them was in a very good position as a professional man, earning something like £650 to £700 a year. The one that had been killed had allowed his mother something. Our Department took into account what that boy had allowed his mother during the time he was surviving, and granted the parents a pension which amounted to a little more than the boy had given them. Even so, that was really not enough for their needs, and I say that the other boys should have contributed something towards the support of their parents. It may be said that we are applying the means test. I say "No," but we are applying the needs test. We are ascertaining what is the need of the parents and then the State is assuming the responsibility of the boy that is dead; and we would ask those others who are alive and can afford it to assume some responsibility too. I am satisfied that all who object to filling up the form to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred do so because they jolly well know that if they do fill it up, they will be out of court. I cannot imagine anyone objecting to answering questions who has a straight forward answer to give. The form may seem a little complicated, but it is not expected that the woman should fill it up by herself. She is requested to go to the local office of the Ministry of Pensions and they will fill it up for her, and in many cases an officer of the Ministry goes round to the house to do it there.
Many other questions have been brought forward. I must thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) for his kind and considerate references to me and my Department. He has given me very valuable service, along with other hon. Members and my Central Advisory Committee. He has taken a very deep interest in questions affecting ex-Service men ever


since he has been a Member of Parliament. He asked me one or two questions and made one or two suggestions. One of his suggestions concerns the question of men on leave and men going on or off duty, who meet with accidents in which they are either injured or killed. I mentioned in my opening remarks that I was dealing with that matter at the moment, and I gave an outline of what I had in mind, but I had to tell the Committee that I was not able to give a final decision because I had not received the final decision from those in a position to give it. I assure hon. Members that I will get on with this matter as quickly as possible.
The matter of the appeal tribunals was emphasised. Perhaps I can give about two minutes to that subject before I go on to other questions. We had a full Debate on the matter about three weeks ago, when I stated what I now repeat, that I am in favour of tribunals because they would relieve me of a tremendous responsibility. I realise also that they would give a feeling of satisfaction to those whose cases had been rejected, if they thought that something could still be done. It does not necessarily follow that they could get as good terms from a tribunal as they get from me now, but that is a matter on which they would have to take a chance. I hope that, when tribunals are set up, hon. Members will agree to abide by the decisions of the tribunals, whether those decisions are in favour of the claimants or not. I receive a number of letters now from hon. Members dealing with cases arising out of the last war. There was a tribunal after that war, and these cases were before the tribunal and were rejected. In spite of the fact that so many years have passed, hon. Members want to re-open the cases, because the men concerned have got worse. They will say they are aware that, according to the law, the decision of the tribunal was binding on all concerned, but they wish to come back to the Minister. Tribunals will relieve me, nevertheless, of a certain amount of responsibility.
I have said before that there is a shortage of medical men with the right kind of experience to serve upon the tribunals. The hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) has given me a good hint, of which I am very glad. He

reminded me that a committee is sitting, under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State for the Dominions, to consider the distribution of medical personnel throughout the various medical services, and he stated that, in his opinion, far too many doctors were serving in the Army. I have made inquiries, and I find that the committee to which he refers is going very carefully into the question whether the Government should not transfer doctors from one Service to another and whether more doctors might not be made available for our hospital services and for service upon appeal tribunals. Without competent doctors—and I do not want them too old, either—you cannot have an effective tribunal. You need doctors who are experienced in this class of case, and who are able to devote a good deal of time to the work. You need the right kind of man. I will watch carefully for the report of the committee, and, possibly there will be indications in it of where to find a supply of competent medical men for this work. We shall reconsider the matter when that report comes along.
Several hon. Members mentioned the question of training, on which I am very keen, because I think it will solve many of our problems and enable men to earn a little, or even a good deal where they become very skilled, to add to their pensions. That will be far better than giving them a shilling or two extra. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie) gave the Committee specific cases, but actually, in a Debate like this, we would rather deal with principles than with cases. I must have the opportunity of investigating cases which are brought forward. He has brought forward cases before, but I think he has admitted, after investigaton, that the facts have not been presented to him as clearly as we know them.

Mr. Dobbie: Would the Minister give me one instance?

Sir W. Womersley: Well—

It being the hour at which The CHAIRMAN is directed by paragraph 6 of Standing Order No. 14 to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration, The CHAIRMAN proceeded to put forthwith the Question.

question agreed to

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £22,008,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Pensions, payments in respect of war pensions, gratuities and allowances, sundry contributions in respect thereof and other services.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14, to put severally the Questions:
That the total amounts of the Votes out standing in the Civil Classes and the Unclassified Services of the Civil Estimates, including Supplementary Estimates, and the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for the Navy. Army, Air and Revenue Departments, be granted for the Services de fined in those Classes and Estimates.

CLASS I.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,587,562, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st clay of March, 1942, for expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1
House of Lords Offices
37,606


2
House of Commons
321,700


3
Registration of Electors 
30,000


4
Treasury and Subordinate Departments (including Supplementary sums of £16,760 and £1,386)
408,772


5
Privy Council Office
11,057


6
Privy Seal Office 
4,898


7
Charity Commission
27,473


8
Civil Service Commission 
27,010


9
Exchequer and Audit Department 
131,276


10.
Friendly Societies' Deficiency
3,326


11
Government Actuary
22,639


12.
Government Chemist
63,520


13
Import Duties Advisory Committee
38,239


14
The Mint 
90


15
National Debt Office
4,827


16.
National Savings Committee
184,683


17
Public Record Office
28,855


18.
Public Works Loan Commission
15,479


19
Repayments to the Local Loans Fund (including a Supplementary sum of £19,275)
26,175


20.
Royal Commissions, etc. 
18,000


21.
Miscellaneous Expenses
34,177


22.
Secret Service
90


23.
Treasury Chest Fund
7,085


24.
Tithe Redemption Commission
90


25
Scottish Home Department
124,410


26.
Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund
16,085




£1,587,562"

CLASS II

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £6,768,688, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1
Foreign Office
564,769


2.
Diplomatic and Consular Services
1,709,223


3
League of Nations 
3,000


4
Dominions Office
51,840


5
Dominion Services 
172,606


6.
Oversea Settlement
7,530


7
Colonial Office
159,450


8.
Colonial and Middle Eastern Services
3,522,980


9
Development and Welfare (Colonies, etc.) 
553,010


10.
Development and Welfare (South African High Com mission Territories, etc.)
23,000


12.
Imperial War Graves Commission
1,280




£6,768,688"

CLASS III

Resolved,
That a sum not exceeding £11,084,399, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1.
Home Office 
946,471


2.
Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum
71,400


3.
Police, England and Wales
6,523,100


4.
Prisons, England and Wales
764,940


5.
Approved Schools, etc., England and Wales
516,400


6.
Supreme Court of Judicature, etc. 
90


7.
County Courts
149,777


8.
Land Registry
118,146


9.
Public Trustee 
8,872


10.
Law Charges.
105.653


11.
Miscellaneous Legal Expenses
19,282


Scotland.


12.
Police, Scotland
1,027,070


13.
Prisons, Scotland 
109,410


14.
Approved Schools, etc.
48,240


15.
Scottish Land Court
4.768


16.
Law Charges and Courts of Law
41.875


17.
Register House, Edinburgh
17,819


Ireland.


18.
Northern Ireland Services 
3,562


19.
Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Northern Ireland
8,572


20.
Irish Land Purchase Ser vices
598,952 




£11,084,399"

CLASS IV.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £41,049,786, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1.
Board of Education
35.915,639


2.
British Museum 
115,690


3.
British Museum (Natural History) 
73.913


4.
Imperial War Museum
8,417


5.
London Museum
2,701


6.
National Gallery
26,413


7.
National Maritime Museum
7.743


8.
National Portrait Gallery 
6,365


9.
Wallace Collection 
8,603


10.
Scientific Investigation, etc.
125.357


11.
Universities and Colleges, Great Britain
1,148,542


12.
Broadcasting
3,600,000


Scotland.


14.
National Galleries 
7,399


15.
National Library
3,004 




£41,049,786"

CLASS V.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £119,619,209, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1.
Ministry of Health 
17,646,200


2.
Board of Control 
126,962


3.
Registrar General's Office 
135,571


4.
National Insurance Audit Department
114,320


5.
Friendly Societies Registry
34.170


6.
Old Age Pensions 
33,016,000


7.
Widows, Orphans and Old Age Contributory Pensions
15,025,000


8.
Ministry of Labour and National Service 
16,710,000


9.
Grants in respect of Employment Schemes
1,710,000


10.
Commissioner for Special Areas (England and Wales) 
90


11.
Assistance Board
13,060,000


12.
Special Areas Fund
750,000


13.
Financial Assistance in Special and other Areas
133.800


14.
Supplementary Pensions Scotland
21,120,000


16.
Board of Control 
13,800


17.
Registrar General's Office 
23,206


18.
Commissioner for Special Areas
90




£119,619,209"

CLASS VI

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £15,262,118," be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1.
Board of Trade 
440,790


2.
Mercantile Marine Services
632,505


3.
Department of Overseas Trade
359.672


4.
Exports Credits 
185,436


5.
Mines Department of the Board of Trade.
188,092


6.
Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands
25.334


7.
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries 
2.359.683


8.
Land Fertility Improvement
947.834


9.
Surveys of Great Britain 
368,750


10.
Forestry Commission
250,000


12.
Roads, etc. 
7,738,000


13.
Development Fund 
438,000.


14.
Development Grants
447.010


15.
Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
504,903


16.
State Management Districts
90


17.
Clearing Offices
90


Scotland


18.
Department of Agriculture
350,331


19.
Fisheries
25,138


20.
Herring Industry 
460




£15,262,118"

CLASS VII

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £8,740,503, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1.
Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain
128,370


2.
Houses of Parliament Buildings 
59,995


3.
Labour and Health Buildings, Great Britain
307,055


4.
Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain
52,590


5.
Osborne
10,910


6.
Ministry of Works and Buildings
606,470


7.
Public Buildings, Great Britain
2,252,980


8.
Public Buildings, Overseas
72,060


9.
Royal Palaces
80,705


10.
Revenue Buildings 
979,275


11.
Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens 
153.315


12.
Rates on Government Property
1,856,268


13.
stationery and Printing 
2,139,195


14.
Peterhead Harbour 
9,000


15.
Works and Buildings in Ireland
32,315




£8,740,503"

CLASS VIII

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,387,794, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1.
Merchant Seamen's War Pensions
157,794


3.
Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc.
780,000


4.
Superannuation and Retired Allowances
1,450,000




£2,387.794"

CLASS IX.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £32,509,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for expenditure in respect of the Services included in class IX of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1.
Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, England and Wales
28,025,000


2.
Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, Scotland
4,484,000




£32,509,000"

UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

Resolved,
That a sum, rot exceeding £1,490, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for expenditure in respect of the Unclassified Services of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1.
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (War Services)
90


2.
Department of Agriculture, Scotland (War Services)
90


3.
Ministry of Aircraft Production
90


4.
Ministry of Economic War fare
90


5.
Ministry of Food 
90


6.
Ministry of Health (War Services) 
90


8.
Ministry of Home Security
90


9.
Ministry of Information 
90


10.
Ministry of Labour and National Service (War Services) 
100


11.
Mines Department of the Board of Trade (War Services) 
100


12.
Petroleum Department of the Board of Trade
90


14.
Ministry of Supply
90

£


16.
Reserve of Plant and Building Materials
90


17.
War Damage Commission 
100


18.
War Damage (Business and Chattels)
100


19.
Ministry of War Transport
100




£1,490"

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1941.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £71,546,260, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, namely:

£


1.
Customs and Excise
4,294,700.


2.
Inland Revenue
6,505,560


3.
Post Office.
60,746,000




£71,546,260"

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1941.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,700 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, namely:

£


2.
Victualling and Clothing for the Navy
100


3.
Medical Establishments and Services 
100


4.
Civilians employed on Fleet Services
100


5.
Educational Services
100


6.
Scientific Services 
100


7.
Royal Naval Reserves
100


8.
Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.—



Section I.—Personnel 
100



Section II.—Materiel 
100



Section III.—Contract Work
100


9.
Naval Armaments.
100


10.
Works, Buildings and Re pairs at Home and Abroad
100


11.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
100


12.
Admiralty Office
100


13.
Non - Effective Services (Naval and Marine)—Officers 
100


14.
Non - Effective Services (Naval and Marine)—Men
100


15.
Civil Superannuation Allowances and Gratuities
100


16.
Merchant Shipbuilding
100




£1,700"

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1941.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding£1,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for expenditure in respect of the Army Services, namely:

£


2.
Territorial Army and Reserve Forces
100


3.
Medical Services 
100


4.
Educational Establishments
100


5.
Quartering and Movements
100


6.
Supplies, Road Transport and Remounts
100


7.
Clothing 
100


8.
General Stores
100


9.
Warlike Stores 
100


10.
Works, Buildings and Lands 
100


11.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
100


12.
War Office 
100


13.
Half-Pay, Retired Pay and other Non-Effective Charges for Officers
100


14.
(Pensions) and other Non-Effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, Men and others
100


15.
Civil Superannuation, Compensation and Gratuities
100




£1,400"

AIR ESTIMATES, 1941.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for expenditure in respect of the Air Services, namely:

£


2.
Quartering, Non - Technical Stores, Supplies and Transportation
100 


3.
Technical and Warlike Stores.
100


4.
Works, Buildings and Lands
100


5.
Medical Services 
100


6.
Educational Services
100


7.
Reserve and Auxiliary Forces
100


9.
Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services
100


10.
Air Ministry 
100


11.
Half-Pay, Pensions, and other Non-Effective Services
100




£900"

Resolutions to be reported upon the next Sitting Day.

Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

WAYS AND MEANS.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, the sum of £341,966,247 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom." —[Captain Crookshank.]

Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day.

Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

FINANCIAL POWERS (U.S.A. SECURITIES) ACT, 1941.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move,
That the Regulations made by the Treasury under subsection (2) of Section 1 of the Financial Powers (U.S.A. Securities) Act, 1941, a copy of which was presented to this House on 29th July, be approved.
These Regulations were presented in draft form when we discussed the Bill last week. No one has raised any point upon them; they are exactly the same as those presented last week, with a slight alteration in Regulation 5 as regards the application to Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man of the penalty provisions—a purely technical point.

Question put, and agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932

Resolved,
That the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section 1 of the Act to:

(1) the Borough of St. Ives, in the County of Huntingdon; and
(2) the Parish of Sunninghill, in the Rural District of Windsor.

copies of which were presented to this House on 29th July, be approved."—[Major Dug-dale.]

RAILWAY TRAINS (ACCOMMODATION).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Dugdale.]

Mr. Tinker: I want to take the opportunity to-day to raise on the Adjournment a matter concerning which I


have previously put down Questions. It concerns the question of third-class rail way travel, and my idea is to try, during the war period, to have one class only, so as to utilise all the available space in rail way carriages. I feel that the time has come when that suggestion ought to be considered seriously by this House, and will give my reasons. There are two kinds of railway journeys, long-distance journeys and short-distance journeys. As regards the second kind, everybody who travels has the same experience. A train draws into a station with its crowded platform, first and third class carriages rush along, and eventually the train comes to a stop. Those who hold third-class tickets sometimes find that a first-class compartment has stopped opposite them, but they are not allowed to enter it. They must search all along the train to find out whether there is room in a third-class compartment. Eventually they find that the third-class compartments are overcrowded. They are not able to get in, and sometimes a person will take his courage in both hands and say he will chance breaking the law by going into a first-class compartment, since it can be proved that all the third-class accommodation is full. Along comes a zealous porter, who sees by the dress of the person concerned that he is not likely to be a holder of a first-class ticket, and inquires into the matter. Modestly, and somewhat abashed, the traveller says he cannot find room. "Come along with me, I will find you a seat somewhere else," says the porter. The passenger submits to being taken along by that man to see whether a seat can be found somewhere else. When that has taken place a few times you get a bit tired of it, and you will not run the risk of entering a first-class compartment.
If by any chance you do try to enter a first-class compartment in which there are one or two occupants holding first-class tickets, you feel you have hardly any right to enter, because as a rule the people who are in the first-class compartment want plenty of room and do not want overcrowding. They show resentment if anyone should dare to enter, when they have paid a first-class fare and there fore feel entitled to comfort. I see this kind of thing taking place every week end when I return home to Lancashire. On each side of a third-class compartment six persons can be seated, and on each

side of a first-class compartment four persons. If you enter a first-class compartment it is not likely that the first-class passengers will give up their room for the sake of accommodating six on each side, and I claim that if every railway carriage was made to accommodate six on each side, and if anybody was allowed to enter both first-class and third-class compartments, we should at a time like this be serving the interests of all concerned. As matters are now, there is a feeling of resentment in people's minds that the present system should continue during the war period.
I pass on to what is called the long distance journey corridor train. There the position is even worse, because on the long-distance train one proceeds along, not daring to enter a first-class compartment. If the corridors are crowded and you do get into a first-class compartment, when the train gets to the last station but one from its destination—say, St. Helens or Warrington—the ticket inspector is in duty bound to leave sufficient room in the first-class compartments for the first-class passengers who might get on at the next station.

Mr. McKie: Is there not accommodation for six persons in a first-class compartment in a corridor train?

Mr. Tinker: My reference was to six persons on each side of a compartment when I was dealing with a short-distance journey. As I was saying people, getting on at the last station but one before the end of the journey and trying to get into a first-class compartment, even though the others are crowded, are told that they are not allowed to do so because there will be first-class passengers at, say, Crewe who are entitled to a seat in a first-class carriage. After leaving Crewe, if there happens to be room, you will probably get a seat in a first-class compartment. There, again, the same difficulty arises as I instanced before. In a third-class compartment in a corridor train there is seating accommodation for four on each side; in a first-class compartment, only three on each side. We get this position in a time when every avail able foot of space should be made use of. If there is any attempt by people to enter a first-class compartment in which there are first-class passengers, there is always the feeling, in the minds of the third-class


passengers, that they have no right to be there, while the first-class passengers think that, as they have paid extra, they are entitled to sufficient space for the journey. That continues on the long-distance journey. Anybody knows that what I am saying is correct. People who crowd into third-class compartments find it difficult to get along the corridor, even though there should be room further along the train. The ticket-collector does not come round to overcrowded third-class compartments and inform the passengers there is room in a first-class compartment. It is left to the third-class passenger to go along himself and take a chance of sitting in a first-class compartment, with the risk of being subjected to questioning before it is decided whether he will be allowed to remain or not.
That is what is happening regularly, and here we are, faced with the necessity of accommodating our railway system to carrying every available passenger and using all the space we have. Yet this anomaly exists. We are not making use of all the space. I witnessed an incident on Monday when travelling in the train. I was passing along to the dining-car and in front of me was a third-class passenger. When we reached the third-class dining car, an attendant, on ascertaining that this man had a third-class ticket, said, "You cannot go into the third-class diner it is full up. If you are a first-class passenger there is plenty of room." I had a first-class ticket and went along to the first-class dining car. It was not full during any part of the journey, and yet that third-class passenger was not allowed to have food because the third-class dining car was full. One can imagine the feelings of men and women at that distinction being drawn on railway journeys. What are we fighting for? We are fighting for equality—to put everybody on the same footing. We are rationing out our food, supply, so that rich and poor are treated alike. Yet, on a railway journey the rich and poor must not have the same travelling facilities, unless it can be absolutely proved that there is room in the first-class compartment and no room in the third.
To what does all that lead? Congestion and waste of time, and, more than that, the bitterness of feeling which exists among third-class passengers that this should go on during the war period. In the case of

soldiers, they are not expected to travel first-class. A soldier gets into a train, has nowhere to put his kit, there is no room in the corridor, and if there is room in the first-class accommodation it is not the thing for him to go there. There is that sharp line of distinction. We call on the private soldier to give as much in the war as the officer gives, and yet a line is drawn between them as regards travelling facilities. I do feel uneasy on this subject. If the matter is examined thoroughly there should be no question as to whether the present system ought to be allowed to continue or not. There may be some argument about the revenue which first-class passengers pay. It might be said that if that revenue were not there, the railway company would suffer. As regards the expense, the question of money, now, has to me no bearing on the matter at all. It is a question of getting the best out of the people to win the war. If the first-class passenger does not expend his money on a first-class ticket he will have so much surplus to invest in war savings and war loans. I do not see how we can stand out on any grounds against the case I am trying to make.
My main object is to give the vast mass of our people the idea that, in a war of this kind, everyone is equal. When we have Debates here, we call upon the working-class people to put in their all. It is quite easy for us to say that a working-man is equal to the richest man in the land. We expect his energy and output to be given. We have no regard to anything else. We are all equal in this way. I want the miner, and the navvy, to be just as much entitled to the best use of the railway as a Minister of the Crown, a Member of Parliament or any highly placed official. It would be a grand thing if, from time to time, many of our highly-placed officials rubbed shoulders with the common people. Travelling with the people on a railway journey, you get more information about the state of the country than by any other means I know. Does the first-class passenger, mixing with people of his own kind, ever hear any opinions different from his own?

Mr. Hewlett: Does the hon. Member travel first-class or third-class?

Mr. Tinker: Now that I am a Member of Parliament and get a railway ticket


free, I travel first-class. I have always said, "The best, when it is within my reach, is good enough for me." When I am at home, and have to pay my own fare, I travel third-class. The best is good enough for the ordinary citizen in time of war. I do not want any advantage. I am a miner by profession. I know the value of the miner. He has as much right to travel first-class as any one else. I would refer to a speech made by the Lord Privy Seal on 12th July, when he visited factories in Wales. He said,
We are going to win, and when we win it will not be due to one or two men, but to the whole nation.
We are rationing things so that every body may get a fair share. It would be right to ration railway space, so that we may make the most of every inch of space available. I hope that the Minister will recognise that my appeal is made in the interests of the nation, in order to help us to win the war, by carrying the good will of the people with us.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I am sure that the reasoned statement that my hon. Friend has just made will be generally welcomed. Some may be inclined to call his argument a sentimental story, but it is not. Unless we are prepared to face the grim realities of the situation, we do not deserve the remarkable sacrifices which are being made by the men and women who, in order to do the nation's work, travel under such uncomfortable conditions as exist on the railways to-day. I feel very sorry for the private soldier, the lance-corporal, the corporal and the sergeant, who when they are huddled together in a corridor probably feel they would like "a spot of liquid refreshment," as the soldier calls it, and who, when they try to get to the dining car, are told that they cannot go into the first-class part. They can see the distinction which is drawn between the officer and the ranker. The officer class undoubtedly can enjoy those facilities which are provided in the dining cars, but the unfortunate soldier must go thirsty. When he gets to a station, he finds that he may have a cup of tea, but that he must not take the cup out of the refreshment room. During the last fortnight I have seen that happen on the railway journey to Doncaster. The waitresses say they cannot allow the cups to go from the refreshment room because

they would not be able to get them back from other stations up the line. The poor private soldier resents this kind of treatment, but he has to endure these discomforts while he sees officers being able to sit in comfort.
There was an announcement in the papers on Monday or Tuesday that the dinings cars are to be withdrawn—though I believe there was a denial on the following day. The services could be reorganised in connection with main-line stations. The civilian and the first-class passenger could be told, "If you want a meal on the way, ten minutes will be afforded for it, such as is allowed to the private soldier and you will be able to queue up as he does." If there are shortages of labour, if we have difficulties in keeping the rolling stock linked together, including dining cars, if we are really short of passenger accommodation, surely we can reorganise our facilities for seating passengers, and pro vide facilities at the stations on the cafeteria system, so that people may be quickly served with light refreshments.
Then, there is the London aspect of the question. Although I am of Northern extraction, when one has spent 14 years in London, one naturally- looks at transport matters from the London point of view. I remember the right hon. Gentleman who is now Minister of Home Security pre paring an excellent statement on London's transport system. Good, bad or indifferent, the London Passenger Trans port Board has been the salvation of London in the last few years. I travel by any old way, so long as I can get to the end of my journey. I have maintained always that it does not matter to me who provides the service so long as there is a service to get me to my job. When a per son who wants to play his part in the war effort sees a train draw into his local station at 9 o'clock in the morning, when he sees people before him crowding into third-class carriages, he begins to dodge about to get in where he can, even in the hope of obtaining standing room. He cannot find it and he goes into a first-class carriage in the hope of changing at the next station to a third-class compartment. At the next station he gets out in the hope of saving himself from being prosecuted by a railway official, but he finds the same situation still and by the time he has travelled past three or four stations an official turns up and asks him for some


extra money, I have sent particulars of cases, from the area in which I reside, to the Minister, and I have received some lovely excuses in reply. But there has been no attempt at alteration. My hon. Friend has explained what happens. It happens day after day in the London area. I do not risk travelling on railways in these days; I travel by 'bus or tube and I usually get home by either of those methods. There is no first class on our line but we know there is a service for us and we take things as they are. We endure the difficulties of the present circumstances because we feel we are all being treated alike.
I believe we can do something for Londoners and I hope the Minister will do something to eliminate the foolish practices that are applied to citizens who live in the suburbs and must get to work and get home, yet have to stand in trains, day after day, and are probably punished two or three times a week because they travel first-class instead of third-class. I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentle man will, particularly, ask the Southern Railway not to be so hard on our folk these days. [HON. MEMBER: "And the L.N.E.R."] Yes, and the L.N.E.R. Surely there are some useful jobs which these inspectors can do. I could find them something more useful to do. I hate to see people standing just outside London Bridge or Victoria and see some unfortunate individual "jumped on" because he has been in a first-class carriage. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will see that these inspectors are given other jobs and do what I have asked him to do, Londoners will be happy.

Mr. McKie: I would like to make one or two observations with regard to the two speeches which have just been delivered. I, like the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), have had occasion, during these 23 months of war, to make frequent journeys, though mine have been far longer than his. He goes to Lancashire and I go to Southern Scotland. During 1940 I had to make 66 journeys to Scotland and back, many of which were made by day but during the present year I have travelled almost entirely by night. During my journeys by day I have not had the same

experiences as the hon. Member. It is true that for a time there was consider able overcrowding and congestion in long-distance corridor trains but never once did I see any cases of brutality, such as he suggested, on the part of railway officials. I, like the hon. Member, avail myself of the free railway travel which a grateful country bestows on Members of this House. Not once did I experience anything of the nature mentioned by the hon. Member for Leigh and the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden), who speaks with an intimate knowledge of railway affairs. The hon. Member for Doncaster referred to the possible withdrawal of dining-car facilities. I do not know whether that withdrawal has been officially announced or whether it has been denied, but I do say that for all the use dining-car facilities are to ordinary passengers, whether first-class or third, they might just as well be abolished. If they were abolished it would, at all events, provide some additional seating accommodation for ordinary passengers in the long distance trains.

Mr. Mathers: Does not the hon. Member consider that the meals we have had together in first-class dining cars within the last few years have been quite a suitable and useful adjunct to the long journey we made?

Mr. McKie: I do not recall those occasions, but, at any rate, the hon. Member is no doubt dealing with pre-war days, and I am speaking of the very uncomfortable meals, if one can call them meals, which are at present available. I know that the hon. Member wants to stick to the old conservative ways as long as possible, and no doubt his long association with railway matters causes him to feel deeply any departure from the old precedents. The only logical conclusion to be arrived at after the speeches we have heard about overcrowding on the railways is that class distinctions on the railways should be abolished altogether. If that should be the wish of the House, I should not offer any objection.

Mr. Silverman: I would not like to allow this occasion to pass without supporting what my hon. Friends have said. I have been involved in controversy with a certain railway company arising out of things I have seen


at railway stations and things of which sometimes I have been the victim. I do not pretend that the railway companies have not got a case. I think they have. They have been running under very great difficulties, and, taking all things into account, they have not made such a bad job of it. When they say that, having taken a first-class passenger's money for a first-class fare, they are under some obligation to see that he gets what he pays for, it is a point of view with which everybody can sympathise. But I do not think that is the difficulty. Surely, the point is that, under conditions of travel ling as they exist at the present time, the railway companies are not physically in a position to give to the first-class railway passenger the accommodation for which he has paid, and which is the subject of the contract, without being unfair to a large mass of citizens who also have paid for certain facilities which they do not get. That is the difficulty that has to be met. I think it is fair to say that, in so far as the railway companies are able to discharge their obligation to first-class passengers, it has been very largely at the expense of the third-class passengers.
In some way or other that situation will have to be met, and it seems to me to be obvious that the only way in which it can be met is by abolishing the distinction between the two classes, and allowing everybody to take his chance, certainly on short journeys, without distinction of class and without pretending to give to one section of the community an advantage arising purely out of its greater financial resources. There may be a case for the abolition of these class distinctions on the transport system for ever, and when we come to plan our new world, perhaps that is one of the minor points that may be taken into consideration. The point is that here you are dealing with exceptional circumstances and exceptional national difficulties, imposing hardships upon everybody. The point my hon. Friends and myself are trying to make is that you cannot apportion this hardship evenly and fairly between all members of the community if you try to retain this artificial distinction which only gives to a small proportion of the community certain ad vantages, very insecurely held, at the expense of the large masses of people who have their daily journeys to do, and who, perhaps, are rendering far more important

service to the national cause than some of the other people standing so closely upon their privileges. I do not believe the vast majority of first-class passengers would regret it in the least if the Government took the line that under these special circumstances and special difficulties we were prepared to raise, in the interests of equity and the equal sharing of the burden, privileges which we might be anxious to retain in other times. I would ask my right hon. and gallant Friend to look at this matter from this point of view. If he could put into operation the policy advocated, I believe he would arouse far more support in the community as a whole, including the first-class passengers, than opposition.

Mr. Mander: I only rise for a moment to express sympathy with and support for the views which have been expressed in favour of the abolition, under present circumstances, of the distinction between the travelling classes on railway trains. Of course, it is very agreeable to have reservations, as at present, for those who can afford to pay more, but it does not seem to me to be justified under present circum stances. I, therefore, hope the Government will take into consideration the views which have been unanimously ex pressed to-day and see what they can do. From the point of view of the company one meets in a train, my experience has very often been that it is more agreeable in the third-class carriage than in the first-class.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Colonel Llewellin): This has been an interesting discussion, and I think that in my reply I had better divide the matter into long distance and suburban trains. On the question of the long-distance trains it is not now the people who can afford to pay who for the most part travel first-class, but people, like Members of this House, officials, officers and other people of that sort who occupy most of the first-class accommodation. It is not only that they have a compartment in which to do some work, but it is also—and this is most important to a large number of people who travel first-class—that they can be pretty certain of a seat if they turn up only a few minutes before the train starts. If there was no first-class accommodation, these people would have to turn


up at the station a great deal earlier. That is the position in regard to long distance travel of first class carriages on long distance trains. The House is not very thickly occupied at the present moment, and I can see myself in the most frightful difficulties at this Box if any other decision than that which I have announced were to be taken in regard to long-distance trains. Captain Euan Wallace, whose death we all deplore, when he abolished sleepers at the beginning of the war was pestered by deputations from Members of- Parliament, and I have a list—a convenient list—of those Members who either wrote to him or went to see him on that occasion. In regard to these long-distance trains, there is no immediate intention of taking over first-class compartments. There have been, as everyone knows, instructions issued to allow first-class compartments to be filled up in corridor trains when the third-class compartments are full.
With regard to the suburban lines, as everybody knows, the London Passenger Transport Board, except in some trains that run on the Metropolitan line, have for some time past abolished the first-class compartments. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden) said that he believed we could do something for Londoners and that we ought to look into the matter. I think we can do some thing in that respect on the short-distance suburban trains, especially for Londoners, and I assure the hon. Member that this will be looked into very carefully. There would be some complications with regard to the main line long-distance trains which also stop at one or two intermediate places not far from London, and it may be that there would have to be some first-class tickets issued so that people could travel first-class on those long-distance trains if they wanted to do so.

Mr. Tinker: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman mean that although there cannot be an alteration on the long distance journeys, the question of the short-distance journeys is being considered in regard to the abolition of first-class tickets?

Colonel Llewellin: That is so. With regard to the announcement that sleepers and restaurant cars might have to be taken off, there is no immediate need to do that. Personally, I think that as

long as we can continue these amenities of travelling, we should do so. I did not quite understand my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) when he said that he had had an uncomfortable meal; I do not know whether the meal was uncomfortable because of his surroundings—

Mr. McKie: Because of the poorness and inefficiency of the service.

Colonel Llewellin: I thought my hon. Friend might have felt uncomfortable after he had eaten it. At any rate, I think that the railway companies are doing then-best in the restaurant cars, considering the difficulties of food rationing, and I think that, generally, a number of people at any rate can get to the restaurant cars and get a meal. If they were taken off, I am afraid there would be no question of stopping the trains for any length of time at intermediate stations. If we took the restaurant cars off the trains, we should have to tell people that they must take with them what they want to eat and drink on the journey, because we cannot delay traffic by holding up trains at intermediate stations in order to allow people time to get meals. Rather than do that, we would keep the restaurant cars on the trains, and perhaps take fewer passengers. When winter comes, and shorter hours of daylight and longer hours of black out are with us, and in air-raid conditions we cannot run the trains at the speed that we should like, then there is bound to be a slowing-down of traffic.
It has been a disappointment to us at the Ministry that we have not been able to stock up coal during the summer months. We have trucks waiting at all the collieries, and we have ships waiting, and unfortunately there is not the coal. We realise that if the programme which the Minister of Labour, the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Mines all hope to see accomplished comes off, we shall have the greatest difficulty at the Minis try of War Transport in the winter in carrying that amount of coal. We shall do our best, but in doing it we may have to take off some facilities, perhaps sleepers, perhaps restaurant cars and per haps whole passenger trains as well, which used to be enjoyed, so that people in the cities and the munitions factories can get


the coal and the munitions that they need. So long as we can run the traffic we shall not take off any facilities just for the sake of making ourselves uncomfortable, but if it is necessary for them to come off, let us take them off ruthlessly, without regard to public opinion or to popular outcry.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (MAJOR REID-KELLETT).

Mr. Stokes: I am sure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's promise that the question of suburban traffic and first-class travel will be looked into will give great satisfaction through out the country. I take it that when he speaks of facilities for London he means other great centres of population as well.
The subject that I have given notice to raise concerns the dismissal from the position of garrison engineer of Major Reid-Kellett, D.S.O., M.C., in October, 1939. I feel that I have to apologise for raising such an old issue, but the fact remains that neither has this officer had justice nor has the question of what I believe to be his victimisation been cleared up in such a way as to make other people throughout the country feel at liberty to give notice to Members of Parliament of extravagance and waste without the fear that in consequence they will be treated in the same way as the great publicity which has been given to this case has led them to suppose that they would be. I do not want to tell a long story because it is all contained in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 2nd May, 1940. Major Reid-Kellett served with distinction in the last war. He was a soldier from Australia and had command of a battalion on active service. He was first employed as a civilian by the War Department on 21st May, 1939, as a liaison officer at Devizes.

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, with out Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Dugdale.]

Mr. Stokes: On 27th June he wrote a report to the chief engineer of the district on waste and extravagance in the construction of camps. At the same time he gave notice to me about it, and on my assurance that he would not be victimised—I

wrote to him and made it clear that disclosures of this kind to Members of Parliament were in the public interest—he gave me information, and I raised the matter in the House. Whether in consequence of my raising it or not, I have not been able to ascertain, but it had the effect of his being suspended from the job on which he was engaged. On 21st July, as the result of frequent references to the matter in this House, and with the concurrence of the Secretary of State for War, I attended a short inquiry at which the presence of Major Reid-Kellett was denied. In consequence, much of the inquiry was absolute waste, although a considerable number of expensive officers and contractors were there, all ready to explain what had happened. On 30th September, 1939, while still in suspension from the job of liaison officer, Major Reid-Kellett reported further to the C.R.E. of the district. On 9th October he was transferred from the job of liaison officer at Devizes and given the post of garrison engineer at Larkhill, which was quite a different kind of job. On 25th October he suddenly received notice terminating his employment at Larkhill on account of a report which he had written on his previous job. A letter which passed between the Chief Engineer of the Southern Command and the General Engineer of Salisbury Plain West contained this significant paragraph:
In particular, in his memorandum to you, dated 30th September, 1939, he announces his intention of continuing to disobey one essential principle, namely, the unauthorised disclosure of official documents.
I have a copy here of that letter, and in no place—presuming it is a true copy—is any mention made of continuing to disclose secret or official documents. Be that as it may, I submit that it is a comparatively minor point having regard to the fact that the only thing that Major Reid-Kellett did was to show me a copy of some official specifications, much out-of-date, as to the methods which should be employed in the construction of camps. He received in a letter dated 24th October, 1939, notice to quit on 8th November, 1939, and since then has been unable to get further work of that kind with any public Department. After some eight or nine months, out of regret lest I might have caused his dismissal, I gave him employment myself. I am glad to be able to say from my experience of him


that I am entirely satisfied that not only is he a capable man but that he is a man who gets on with the people working under him. I am quite prepared to admit that it is not so easy for the people above him; that, unfortunately, is one of the difficulties which arose at Devizes. He is an honest-to-God sort of person, he will not stand for any nonsense or waste, and I know that he does not suffer fools gladly, which is not at all a bad attribute to have when dealing with problems of the kind with which he has been faced in the past.
I must cut this record short, because I know that my hon. Friend will want a little time in which to reply, but let me tell my hon. Friend that it is no use his saying that Major Reid-Kellett was un suitable for the job because the officer under whom he was serving told him at the time he engaged him that he was glad to have him and when he was told to dismiss him told him that he was sorry he was going. If my hon. and gallant Friend cares to look that up he can refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT of 2nd May, 1940, cols. 969 and 970. I want to emphasise that, as a result of the disclosures made and the efforts of Major Reid-Kellett to draw attention to the extravagance going on, the War Office specification was altered. The type of bricks used in camp construction was altered, with a saving of 26s. per 1,000, which would amount probably to a saving of £1,000 per camp. The specification of pipes was changed from earthenware pipes to concrete pipes, which are about 33⅓ per cent. cheaper, which meant a saving of approximately £1,000 per camp. It is significant, also, that about this time, and after this trouble, the Director of Fortifications and Works was given a "Dutchman's rise" and went to another job, and that the gentleman in charge of contracts in that Department was removed from his post. I cannot pretend to know the reasons why. I have not managed to extract from the War Office files the particular memos. which dealt with those subjects, but it was noted throughout the trade.
Subsequently there was a good deal of argument in this House, and the Select Committee on National Expenditure investigated the question of militia camps and reported. Major Reid-Kellett did not

appear before that Committee. He gave no evidence face to face with the Committee. Whether he was asked to give evidence or not I am not clear, but certainly others were asked. I think I am right in saying that he was given the opportunity to do so, but owing to the fact that he was not allowed to produce his own witnesses in support of what he was saying there was no use in his doing so, having regard to the fact that his was a case of victimisation, and waste and extravagance were already admitted. In fact, I do not mind admitting that I advised him that I did not think there was any use, having regard to the cirumstances in which he was placed, in his appearing before the Select Committee. I did not think it would help in this particular case. In consequence of chasing the Prime Minister and raising Questions in this House I got a statement from the Prime Minister eventually that Mr. Justice Simonds had stated in a covering letter to his Report that he had examined the question of the victimisation of the persons making the charge, although it did not appear to him that it was within his terms of reference; and that he went on to say:
But as this is a question upon which there has been some public anxiety I necessarily had to consider it as an incident of the charges made and am quite satisfied that there is no ground for the suggestion that there has been any victimisation whatever.
I have been trying to discover since then what evidence was given to Mr. Justice Simonds. He cannot have had Major Reid-Kellett's evidence, because none was taken, and therefore it must have been evidence given before the Select Committee by other people who reported on the extravagance and waste. On the same day—it is curious that it happens to be so near the anniversary of the Debate last year—I pointed out to the Prime Minister that I had a paper in my hand which made it clear that there had been victimisation and asked whether he could have the paper examined. He promised to do so, and I wrote him a letter en closing a copy of that particular letter to the Chief Engineer, Salisbury Plain West. I received a reply from the Secretary of State for War saying that he really felt the Government had done all they could be expected to do in the matter and that it should be regarded as closed by the Prime Minister's answer to me. But that


answer was that if I sent the document to him he would see that the matter was properly investigated—which has not been done. I sent it to the Prime Minister, who apparently then shot it over to the Secretary of State for War, who then reported to me in this light-hearted way on what I think is a matter of the greatest public importance.
It is no use the Financial Secretary saying that this case was examined in October, 1939, by the hon. and learned Member for Bolton (Sir C. Entwistle) to discover whether or not the Major was victimised. That matter did not arise, because he was still in suspension and he had not been dismissed from his job as garrison engineer. Nor can it be shown that the learned judge dealt with this case. I wish to get a full reply from the Financial Secretary to the War Office. The effect of the case has been most marked. This is shown by the nature of the com plaints which I have had occasion to raise in this House from time to time and by the fact that I have received an abundance of letters complaining about waste and extravagance. Occasionally, complaints are about irregularities, but not so often. I am absolutely baulked in most of these cases, because the correspondents say, "You can use this information, but for Heaven's sake do not mention my name, or I shall be served the same as Reid Kellett!" What is one to do? The case has been given so much publicity—I think the Financial Secretary will admit this point, although he has not been long in his present office—that it is acting as a deterrent to people coming forward with confidence and without any fear of victimisation to report about waste and extravagance on very important cases to Members of Parliament.
That is the major issue. The minor issue is of no less intrinsic importance. It is that this man, two years ago, in June, 1939, reported on a case, in all honesty and sincerity, and with the full assurance that he would get a square deal. The case was completely proved, so far as waste and extravagance were concerned, because there was a change in the specifications, by the report of a Select Committee. It is common knowledge through out the contracting trade and the Director of Fortifications and Works knows of it as well. Nevertheless, the man has not had justice done to him. I do not want

the Financial Secretary to answer that he has completely satisfied himself, as the result of a short talk I have had with him at the War Office, that my claims are not proven; but I would like him to promise to scrutinise the matter and to assure the House that it will be given the closest examination and a fair settlement at the earliest possible date.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Sandys): This topic has already engaged the attention of the House on a number of previous occasions, and the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has once again given the House his version of it. The story which he tells us is of a patriotic officer who was summarily dismissed by the War Office, because, out of his anxiety for the national interest, he disclosed to a Member of Parliament certain official information.

Mr. Stokes: The hon. Member ought to have some sympathy with him on that account.

Mr. Sandys: I was going on to say that if that were a complete and accurate account of what occurred, the case would necessarily raise a number of delicate constitutional issues upon which I should hesitate to comment. In point of fact, the story which the hon. Member has told us is not the complete story; nor is it, in certain important respects, entirely accurate. In the circumstances, I think the best thing I can do is to give the House the facts of this case and leave hon. Members to judge it for themselves. In May, 1939, as the hon. Member told us, Major Reid-Kellett was engaged in a civilian capacity by the Southern Command as a resident engineer at the Militia camps under construction at Netheravon and Winterbourne Gunner in Wiltshire. His duties consisted principally of liaison work, that is to say, of ensuring smooth co-operation between the Royal Engineers and the surveyors and contractors engaged in the construction of these camps. How ever, within a bare month of his engagement he wrote a memorandum which was sent to the War Office in which he made a number of specific charges of serious malpractice and dishonesty against the surveyors and contractors with whom he was working.

Mr. Stokes: Would my hon. Friend give the House the date of that memorandum?

Mr. Sandys: It was within about a month of the time he was engaged. He was engaged in May, and this occurred in June. On receipt of this memorandum, the War Office immediately and thoroughly examined the allegations which it contained, and called for very full explanations from the firms concerned. These inquiries proved, to the complete satisfaction of the Department, that there was no evidence to justify the very grave charges which Major Reid-Kellett had made.

Mr. Stokes: Does the hon. Gentleman mean of extravagance and waste, or of irregularity?

Mr. Sandys: am talking about the charges of dishonesty. These were specific charges involving the honesty, reputation and integrity of the firms. In view of the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Ipswich and by Major Reid-Kellett that the War Department, either through slack ness or out of a desire to whitewash the contractors, did not properly examine the charges made, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the very definite statement on this point which has been made by Mr. Justice Simonds in his recent report. This is what the Judge said:
I was impressed, as I think no one who read all the departmental files could fail to be impressed, by the way in which, even in the exacting conditions of 1939 and 1940, allegations reflecting on the honesty of con tractors or officials were taken up and probed. My second conclusion is that the Department were well justified in determining that no further action should be taken in regard to the charges in question.

Mr. Benson: Were these the specific charges made by Major Reid-Kellett?

Mr. Sandys: These were those charges and certain other charges.

Mr. Stokes: I am sorry to be such a nuisance, but the facts are important. Will the Financial Secretary explain why, in these inquiries, the evidence of Major Reid-Kellett himself was never sought?

Mr. Sandys: I have very little time, but the whole of this matter was placed before the Judge, and he came to the conclusion that the inquiries made by the Department were adequate, and, as I have just said, he said that his second conclusion was that the Department were well justified in determining that no further action

should be taken in regard to the charge in question. I think that is a very definite statement by somebody who is in a position to make a statement on that subject.

Mr. Stokes: It is of no use at all.

Mr. Sandys: Major Reid-Kellett refused absolutely to accept the conclusions of this inquiry and continued to reiterate his accusations. In view of his attitude—and this is the answer to the point the hon. Member has made—it became impossible for him to continue to perform his duties, which required tact and good will on both sides, with firms against whom he had made and continued to make allegations of a very serious kind He was consequently transferred to Lark hill, and given some other work of a different kind to do. However, he did not settle down there either. Late in September, he sent to the Chief Engineer Southern Command, a further memorandum.

Mr. Stokes: But he did not start a Larkhill until 9th October.

Mr. Sandys: I have not got the date here. It is quite immaterial where he was when he wrote a further memorandum reiterating his previous charges This memorandum was sent under a covering letter, the tone and language of which were, to say the least, crude and impertinent. In his letter he made it clear that if the attitude of the War Office did no alter, he would not hesitate to circulate copies of his allegations to the House of Commons, to the public and to the Press

Mr. Stokes: What date was that letter:

Mr. Sandys: That is the letter of 30th September.

Mr. Stokes: Would the hon. Gentleman quote what he said?

Mr. Sandys: He said that if the hostility of the Director of Fortifications and Works persisted, it was his intention to reproduce his document in large number: to be circulated to the Press, the House of Commons, and the public. The military authorities of the Southern Command had shown, I think, remarkable patience and toleration towards his earlier outbursts but they felt, as I think was natural, that the line must be drawn somewhere. After carefully reviewing all the circumstances


of the case, they came to the inevitable, and, I feel, only possible, conclusion. Major Reid-Kellett's contempt for Regulations—and I think my hon. Friend sup ported that contention to some extent by what he has said—

Mr. Stokes: Not at all.

Mr. Sandys: —his insolence towards his superiors—

Mr. Stokes: I only said that he did not suffer fools gladly.

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member said that Major Reid-Kellett did not get on so well with the people above him. His attitude of continual suspicion, his practice of spying on those with whom he worked—the hon. Member knows that we have papers in which he tells of the way in which he obtained much of his information—his habit of making, and continuing to make, unsubstantiated accusations against those with whom he worked, in short, his complete instability of character and temperament, clearly made it no longer possible or desirable to retain his services. It was accordingly decided by the Southern Command on 23rd October to give him the necessary notice to terminate his engagement. These are the circumstances in which Major Reid-Kellett left the service of the War Department. Was that victimisation? The hon. Member says it was. I say it was not. I am supported in my contention by the conclusions of both the independent inquiries into the charges made by Major Reid-Kellett. The first was the inquiry by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton (Sir C. Entwistle), at the request of the then Secretary for War.

Mr. Stokes: That was perfectly useless, as I have explained.

Mr. Sandys: The inquiry took place after notice was given to Major Reid-Kellett to terminate his engagement, and not before. I have a letter which makes it perfectly clear when that occurred, and I am prepared to show it to the hon. Member.

Mr. Stokes: I was present, and it was perfectly useless as an inquiry.

Mr. Sandys: I will deal with that point. In his report, the hon. and learned Member for Bolton declared specifically that he was satisfied that there was no

foundation for these allegations of victimisation. He considered, on the contrary, that the authorities had treated Major Reid-Kellett with great toleration. The hon. Member for Ipswich lightly brushes aside this careful and impartial investigation. He considers that it was inconclusive. The hon. Member is entitled to his opinion, but I must point out that in his recent report, published as a White Paper, Mr. Justice Simonds expresses a very different view. He says:
I have carefully considered these reports"—
that is the report of the hon. and learned Member for Bolton and the report of the Treasury Solicitor—
and in my judgment they form a convincing exposure of the baselessness of the charges under review.

Mr. Stokes: But that dealt with the irregularity, not with the victimisation.

Mr. Sandys: I am concerned with the value of the report made by the hon. and learned Member for Bolton. Mr. Justice Simonds could hardly have said anything stronger than that. I leave it to the House to choose between the opinion of the hon. Member for Ipswich and that of the Judge. The Judge's report was concerned specifically with charges of mal practice. However, having had in the course of his inquiry to study all the related aspects of the case, he felt it his duty, in his report to the Prime Minister, to refer to the allegation of victimisation. I would like to read this again to the House. It has already been given in an answer by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Ipswich:
The question of 'victimisation' of the persons making the charges did not appear to me to lie within my terms of reference; there fore, I did not deal with it in my report.
But it is a question upon which there has, I believe, been some public anxiety. I necessarily had to consider it as an incident of the charges that were made and am quite satisfied that there is no ground for the suggestion that there has been any victimisation whatever.

Mr. Stokes: He never examined Major Reid-Kellett or his evidence.

Mr. Sandys: My hon. Friend refuse's to accept the Judge's findings. He maintains that Mr. Justice Simonds had insufficient evidence to enable him to reach a balanced opinion, and that the War Office may have withheld from the


Judge certain vital facts. I submit that the learned Judge could be left to decide for himself whether he had sufficient evidence. The War Office placed before him all the papers available in the case, with out exception, and he was able to form his opinion upon them. The Government have no wish to cover up dishonest practice. In fact, as experience in the courts has shown recently, where there is sufficient evidence every effort is made to bring offenders to justice. But when sifted by a succession of inquiries, including an inquiry by a High Court Judge, I think we are fairly entitled to ask that those who bring these charges should now be content to accept the findings.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask the hon. and learned Member for Bolton whether he considers that the inquiry which he and I attended really substantiated that there was no question whatever that Major Reid-Kellett had been victimised?

Sir Cyril Entwistle: I was asked to examine certain specific charges of malpractice, and I had no doubts what ever in making the report that I did. I was completely satisfied on the evidence, and I heard Major Reid-Kellett.

It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.